User talk:Epsilon the Eternal

The Doctor (The Five O'Clock Shadow)
Ah, no — he used to have a page, actually, but he doesn't anymore. The thing here is that we only award pages to unspecified Doctor if it's clear that they're intended to be new, unnumbered Doctors — but if we don't have any physical description or other reason to think they're not an existing Doctor, then they just go in The Doctor. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  11:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Thinly-veiled characters
Thanks again for all your help in growing this list, I really appreciate it! – n8 (☎) 14:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

A Tingle of Happiness
Hi Epsilon,

I noticed that you added that the a demon from Magrs' Nest Cottage Chronicles appeared in A Tingle of Happiness. Where was it confirmed that these Demons were the same? RadMatter ☎  15:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Appearances list suggestion
I saw your addition on Najawin's sandbox, and just wanted to let you know there was an ongoing discussion about this exact thing and many other aspects of appearances/appearance lists before the forums disappeared. In fact, now that I think about it, if we ever get that thread back it might be the right place for your proposal in general. I don't know if this link will work again, but for reference it was Thread:141930 (called something like "What is an appearance?"). Chubby Potato ☎  23:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Vitas Varnas in Omega
Hey, just wondering if you had a citation for the matter of the character explicitly both being the same individual in terms of intent. That's the current issue that is being had by me with that page. The existing citation to the story itself doesn't cover that because the story doesn't make the connection itself... hence my addition of a fact tag.

I have heard a few fans say that the two are meant to be the same, but there seems to be no source they can give me.

Until we have a cited statement from Cutaway Comics on the page that works to cover that point, I feel it's worth having that tag there to acknowledge that the connection of both instances is a matter that will cited from elsewhere rather than the story itself. Otherwise, in my opinion, we're making a bit of a presumptive comment regarding two identically faced characters that we cannot make without cited authorial intent - particularly given precedent in the Whoniverse for identically faced characters that aren't connected. JDPManjoume ☎  10:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing that talk page to my attention. I think the concern for me is that the page still reads as though we're saying that the story itself makes that connection... when perhaps it should be a combination of that Kickstarter page for Omega and something relevant to the Lytton appearance that should be leveraged on the weight of the connection.


 * Bart Simpson makes for an interesting precedent, and somewhat curious one (I am going to have to try and query Mike Collins about both of those), and I would certainly hope to not be splitting the pages either as that would be rather messy - but without a cited source of some kind or a tag denoting that we've yet to put one in place, I can't help but feel that we are making a call that is a bit difficult to make... I will mull on it. JDPManjoume ☎  17:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Re External communication
What's wrong with my talkpage? RadMatter ☎  22:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The Magrs Wiki would be great for me Epsilon! RadMatter ☎  22:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Some issues that need to be covered
Hi I need to address a couple of things with you.
 * The forums and policies: please stop complaining about the lack of forums and User:CzechOut's lack of progress in same. There are a lot of issues here: we have no idea what he's doing in real life that might be keeping him from this project; we have no idea what he's working on and don't want to cause technical issues; and we don't allow just anyone to do whatever they want here (yes a lot of you are experienced prolific editors but not everyone who edits here is, and everyone has to be subject to the same rules). To make a long story short, no more comments about CzechOut's lack of progress.
 * Personal attacks: I know you know the rules so I'm not going to quote or cite them here. There is nothing wrong with you disagreeing with another user, and nothing wrong with pointing that out. However, the namecalling violates policy. Right now I am specifically referring to the discussion post where you called the OP "silly" twice. This user in particular has been here only a little over a month. This is obviously not how we want new users to be greeted. Instead of calling names you could have introduced him to the idea of non-TV doctors. This can be hard for some people to do, but try to put yourself into the position of a new user entering a community and being greeted with name calling.

I actually contemplated blocking you, not so much for the complaints against policy, but more for the namecalling on the discussion boards. Given the discussion over at Tardis talk:Temporary forums, and your obvious disagreement with my deletion of the page, I figured it wouldn't look good for me to block you at this time (it might look like I was trying to silence your arguments). Don't mistake that as any kind of approval of your behavior, and another offense will result in a block.

Sorry this is so long and thanks for reading it Shambala108 ☎  03:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Baker's End
Hi Epsilon,

Would you be able to elaborate on the research that you did regarding Baker's End and why you don't think that an inclusion debate would be clear cut? RadMatter ☎  15:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, please! RadMatter ☎  15:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Block
Hi please note that you are blocked for a week for ignoring admin instructions. Specifically, I noted at Talk:Ian Chesterton that only admins can end discussions. You ignored that instruction by removing a "rename" tag at Sprout Boy meets a Galaxy of Stars (TV story). Like I mentioned at the Ian Chesterton talk page, if you think there needs to be some movement in a long-abandoned discussion, ask an admin. Shambala108 ☎  00:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I am answering here your post at Community. When I blocked you I left the ability for you to edit this talk page so it's just easier to keep the conversation here.


 * To address your points in order:
 * Your comment about the Ian Chesterton issue that it wasn't a discussion, rather than a suggestion, is just semantics. Talk pages are specifically defined as for discussing the editing of an article. Any issue raised on the talk page is a discussion, and T:BOUND means that any changes must wait for the discussion to be closed. And there is no magic number of users to make something a discussion.
 * "There is no policy that states that admins are the only ones with that power" is not true. The policy has been stated over and over on article talk pages, user talk pages, forum discussions, and edit summaries. Not every policy has to be spelled out on a Tardis:something page.
 * Your point that the discussion you closed was beneficial is irrelevant, because of T:BOUND.
 * You were blocked for removing a rename template, which initiates a discussion. That's why non-admins aren't permitted to remove them.
 * Please refrain from accusing me (or any other admin) of violating FANDOM blocking policy. As stated in the second point above, our policies are not confined to policy pages; the prohibition of a non-admin closing a discussion is, as stated above, in many places on the wiki.
 * "I expect you to re-assess...and...remove [the block]". Sorry but that is not the way to approach it. You have assumed you are in the right and I am in the wrong, and as you can see from my comments, I do not agree with that assessment. Maybe a little contrition would have helped. Sometimes it's just better to say, "I'm sorry, I won't do it again" or even "I appreciate that the block was only one week" instead of expecting the block to be removed.
 * No one, admin or otherwise, is allowed to tell other users what to edit. I contribute what I can when I can, and since there are few people with admin powers, my focus tends to be on admininstrative items. There is also the issue that whenever possible, a closing admin should not have participated in a discussion. Be assured that the admins do watch the discussions and are aware of what needs to be done.
 * Finally, feel free to contact another admin, as is your right. Hopefully you will get a quick response despite the holiday.


 * Thanks for your attention Shambala108 ☎  04:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I am copy/pasting the rules from the "How to respond to being blocked" section of Help:I'm blocked. I have bolded the parts that you violated in your posts to me over at Community Central.


 * Because Fandom Staff probably won't help you, somehow you need to get in touch with local admin. The only way to do this, if they're preventing you from all communication on their wiki, is to go to another Fandom wiki — neutral ground as it were — and leave a message on their wall/talk page there. If they don't respond to you after one (again, one) polite and reasonable attempt at apology, you can make one last attempt.


 * You can then seek out a different local admin than the one who blocked you and plead your case. (Again, you'll have to contact them on a different wiki, and again you'll need to keep your cool when you do it.) Admit that you were wrong and ask the "neutral" admin to perform an internal review of the case. If you make your case politely and you admit you were wrong, you might get the blocking re-considered. The blocking might not actually get overturned, but at least you'll have gotten some sort of review by the only people who can overturn it.


 * Having said all this, you need to be very careful about contacting people who have blocked you. Don't carry on a conversation with a person on wiki a about events on wiki b. The admin of wiki b might not like it, especially if the conversation turns ugly. You could easily end up being banned from wiki b too. Make it one note. Make it apologetic. Don't swear. Don't accuse. Just say, "I made a mistake. I apologise profusely. Is there any way you could review the block and lower it?" That's it. And remember: one attempt at communicating with a blocking admin is reasonable. Two or more attempts can be considered harrassment.

Shambala108 ☎  03:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Corsair
Hey Toby, just thought you might be interested in Talk:Eleven Things You Probably Didn't Know About the Corsair, since it's relevant to your conversation at Talk:The Corsair. – n8 (☎) 15:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

U.N.I.T. (fictional website)
Hi Epsilon the Eternal, well done on all you've done with the pages for the UNIT website.

In case you wish to do any more pages for the fictional websites, here's a list of all the ones I'm aware of from 2005-07:
 * GeoComTex launched: c.06-May-05 Wayback link
 * Bad Wolf launched: c.05-Jun-05 Wayback link
 * Guinevere One launched: c.18-Dec-05 Wayback link
 * Leamington Spa Lifeboat Museum launched: c.06-Apr-06 Wayback link
 * Millingdale Ice Cream launched: c.08-Apr-06 Wayback link
 * Torchwood House launched: c.23-Apr-06 Wayback link
 * Deffry Vale High School launched: c.15-May-06 Wayback link
 * Cybus Industries launched: c.23-May-06 Wayback link
 * Cybus Fitness launched: c.26-May-06 Wayback link
 * Torchwood launched: c.15-Jun-06 Wayback link
 * Torchwood Institute launched: c.03-Jul-06 Wayback link
 * VoteSaxon launched: c.18-Jun-07 Wayback link
 * HaroldSaxon launched: c.25-Jun-07 Wayback link

These are some other websites that I'm less clear on:
 * http://internationalelectromatics.co.uk
 * http://cybusproperty.co.uk
 * http://cybusfinance.co.uk
 * http://britishrocketgroup.co.uk
 * http://ambrosehall.org.uk
 * http://drinkvitex.co.uk
 * http://powellestate.co.uk
 * http://resistthefutility.org.uk

Plus some Torchwood ones:
 * http://blakeenquiries.co.uk
 * http://centurycardiff.co.uk
 * http://conradfischer.co.uk
 * http://darktalk.co.uk
 * http://newedenbiotech.co.uk
 * http://singlessos.co.uk
 * http://standardmail.co.uk

I hope you find this information useful. Doc77can ☎  01:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Me again, I remembered another one.
 * Ghostwatch launched: c.28-Jun-06 Wayback link There was a link on the "Army of Ghosts" episode page on the Doctor Who website.


 * Also the series 1 sites were linked from the Doctor Who website homepage.
 * c.Thu 24-Mar-05, whoisdoctorwho.co.uk from a link at the bottom of the "Rose" homepage entitled Lies, this link seems to have been renamed Who is Doctor Who? by the following day.
 * c.Wed 20-Apr-05, unit.org.uk from a link at the bottom of the "World War Three" homepage entitled UNIT: Alien Hotline.
 * c.Wed 04-May-05, geocomtex.net from a link hidden in the flash version of the "The Long Game" homepage entitled WELCOME TO GEOCOMTEX.
 * c.Sat 04-Jun-05, badwolf.org.uk from a link at the bottom of the "Boom Town" homepage entitled Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?, this link seems to have been renamed Bad Wolf by Mon 13-Jun-05.
 * c.Sat 17-Dec-05, guinevere.org.uk from a link on the flash version of "The Christmas Invasion" homepage entitled DISCOVER Mars.


 * Each of the flash versions of the homepages for "Rose"-"World War Three" & "The Long Game" contained a hidden link to whoisdoctorwho.co.uk. If you hovered the cursor over a specific area text would appear, clicking on it linked to the site. The flash version of the "Boom Town" homepage contained a hidden link to badwolf.org.uk as well, if you hovered the cursor over the TARDIS, the Bad Wolf graffiti would appear, clicking on it linked to the site.


 * BBC Blog about Doctor Who's online stuff


 * Doc77can ☎  01:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Just leaving this link here so I don't forget about it, but I found another in-universe website. henriksonline.co.uk 📯 📂 11:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Me again, re your Sanbox Nine.
 * At the end of each of the first six Series 2 browser games, they would redirect to a webpage which would feature a second pop-up video from Mickey.


 * Hi Epsilon, I uploaded images of all the 2005-06 tie-in websites, hope these are of use to you.

Doc77can ☎  01:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Re: Edit war
That might be the case, but wouldn't explain why they revert my edits when I remove the spaces, leaving the rest of their edit intact. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  13:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Presenting yourself as an admin
You are not an admin on this site, I do not appreciate you leaving bold text instructions on my talkpage telling me what to do/what not to do. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  13:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Right — I assume you saw the discussion on the other talk pages, but, for the sake of transparency and protocol, I'll record it here explicitly:


 * While User:DrWHOCorrieFan, not being an admin either, was sort of making the same mistake, and their tone was a bit curt in general, this doesn't change the fact that the spirit of the above post is correct. Especially when dealing with a new user, you should be careful not to claim, or give the impression of claiming, admin authority that you do not have. As User:Shambala108 noted, this isn't the first time we've had cause to give you a warning about this. Please make a real effort to be more careful about this, especially in the more heated sorts of discussions like the present one. An explicit "I'm not an admin, but…" sort of disclaimer costs little and goes a long way. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 00:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Sergeant vs Sargeant
Hi there. I notice you've been referring to A Frederick as a sargeant rather than by the correct spelling, Sergeant. I wonder if this is a deliberate choice or not, as I note that, at the very least, Operation Mannequin uses the correct spelling. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  10:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Cleavis
Hey, I noticed that you seem to be a Paul Magrs fan. I wondered if you would be interested in reading my comment on Talk:Cleavis. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  00:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Discord
hey eps we think your discord got hacked its sending out wierd links to probably fake minecraft servers Editoronthewiki ☎  21:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Re: Moving Pages
Ah! You're completely right. I totally forgot about moving links in that moment. Wont happen again. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  12:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

T:SPOIL
Your request on my talk page to lock a certain page from creation for the time being was, in and of itself, correct, but — er — not to reignite the flames of the recent debate, but surely you see that saying the names outright is even more obviously a spoiler-hazard than the previous business? There is basically only one context in which we'd want to creation-lock an as-yet-uncreated page about an actor. T:SPOIL matters, to a lot of readers and editors. I realise this was a tricky thing to convey without repeating the spoilers, but you could, for example, have advised me to check whether the pages of "all announced actors" had yet been locked, without naming any names.

(I've redacted your message rather than deleted it, since DrWHOCorrieFan said they'd rather I'd done that with theirs.) Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 22:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * They most definitively are not. User talk pages are the single most difficult-to-avoid part of the Wiki for the user in question. It so happens I already know of the casting announcement under discussion, but supposing I were spoiler-averse, where do you suppose I would be, now? It is due diligence 101 (doubly so for an admin) to check my talk page regularly! Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 23:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Re: Editing other people's talk pages
Admins have the right to update links on other people's talk pages; I am not sure that other users have it by rights, in terms of precedent. Certainly T:UVAN itself doesn't give that right to them. It would probably be best to ask an admin to perform such mass link changes, or else to ask permission from the user whose page you want to edit. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 16:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Spoilers
Hi please note that the following page is in violation of the spoiler policy: User:Epsilon the Eternal/Ncuti Gatwa. Tardis:Where spoilers are allowed is very clear about where spoilers can be placed. You can either delete the information (and then re-add it when it is no longer a spoiler) or an admin can delete the page and later restore it if necessary. Thanks Shambala108 ☎  03:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Well it has been five days since I posted the above. If after a week the spoilers from this page haven't been removed, the page will be deleted. Thanks Shambala108 ☎  02:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Re List of future releases, I have a very hazy memory of a discussion (probably in the forums? and maybe by me?) where this was brought up, but there's nothing on its talk page or that of List of future Big Finish releases. Someone did ask about the existence of these pages on Talk:List of future Big Finish releases, and I answered that maybe it's considered a series page, but otherwise I don't know; I will check up on it and get back to you. If someone else remembers the original discussion, then I guess we could add it to Tardis:Where spoilers are allowed. Shambala108 ☎  01:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

In-universe versions of these stories…
How's it hanging, Epsilon? Since you were the creator (iirc) of the "Doctor Who franchise in the DWU" navbox, I was wondering if you could direct me to where the in-universe versions of Christmas Invasion, New Earth, Smith and Jones, Voyage of the Damned, and The Pilot appeared? Cheers WaltK ☎  19:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Re:Sandbox 3
That's a rather, well, unique case, since the work in question isn't a story, and is sorta kinda already a thing? See my discussion with OS12 at User talk:OncomingStorm12th/Archive 4 and User talk:Najawin/Archive 2. (Not exactly analogous, but it discusses how merchandise rules are not the same as story rules.) The work in question has also already had multiple "releases", and my understanding is that there's a version of it that some members of the public are playing. It's a complicated issue. Arguably the better argument is that User:Najawin/Sandbox 2 had spoilers when I made it. Which you could argue it did? Certainly no more so than a press release. Note that I'm actually in favor of a relaxation of the spoiler rules to a certain level, eg, to the level where we can actually create a page for a certain actor. But the proposal you've currently floated allows more than just "press release" style pages in sandboxes, it allows for rumors to be there as well, a la Series 14 (Doctor Who), which I just can't support. And in any event this is a separate proposal to the one Nate's floating and they should be made separately. Najawin ☎  20:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Antonio Amaral
btw, did the issue with his likeness in Lytton ever get resolved? I was never interested in Lytton, so idk if he's shown up in it yet or not. Najawin ☎  06:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Re: Re: Guestbook
Ok. It's an interesting concept. Bongo50  ☎  06:12, 22 September 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 ☎  20:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Petronella Osgood's... relative
Hi, Epsilon. I hadn't actually thought about that, but it's a good point. The only reference more concrete than vague "family connections" that I can think of at the moment is one where she gets cut off - in Call to Arms, Benton says that she reminds him of someone and she says "oh, you mean my--".

I'm going through a load of Kate and Osgood stories at the moment, so I'll keep my eyes peeled and my ears... also peeled for more concrete references to an actual relative. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  15:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hellscape 5 and 6
So policy requires someone to have listened to these particular audios to start a disinclusion debate over them. Do you know someone on here who's listening to Hellscape? Najawin ☎  00:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings
Merry Christmas, Epsilon the Eternal, and have a Happy New Year. Sincerely, BananaClownMan ☎  11:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Re: International Electromatics
Hmm. Truth be told that the information in that revision, though added relatively recently, was derived from elsewhere on the Wiki which I believed to be true. I've been aware of that apparent "fact" for some years and it seemed to gel with my memory of the tie-in websites but now I can't seem to find it from what's avaliable on Wayback. MrThermomanPreacher ☎  19:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Non-narrative fiction
Be my guest! The current plan is to simply suggest allowing non-narrative fiction but to note that many might also want to discuss nonlinear stories. While that won't be part of the main proposal, the forum dive suggested that the historical context of nonlinear stories was important to the overall discussion, and it's certainly a way we could go. Najawin ☎  15:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure. Not the plan, but I think the context is important. (My current thought is to note at the end that if you want to discuss nonlinear stories to use a separate subheading and keep that discussion separate from the rest of the thread.) Najawin ☎  16:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notes, I've edited to reflect. As regarding your post, there are a few blanks in my timeline, and Scrooge's comment only fills in one of them, and that one incompletely. Namely, User:Chubby Potato's thread regarding TARDIS Type 40 Instruction Manual, we lost all of the posts on that thread and this was one of them. Scrooge's post doesn't actually reference anything from the deleted forums, it's entirely discussing things that are still available for us to see and are detailed in my history. (Though we disagree on the significance on Forum:Canonicity of Dalek Annuals. As far as I can tell the thread had no significant impact on the reasoning in other threads, and what did impact later rulings came before that thread. While the visual is cute, I wouldn't insist on the idea that the Dalek comic being the reason non-narrative fiction is invalid.)
 * There are at least three significant gaps still unaccounted for that might simply never be filled because they don't have answers and it just sort of happened. The first being User:Freethinker1of1's reference to a discussion at Tardis talk:Canon policy that doesn't seem to exist, the second being User:Tangerineduel referencing the idea that the FASA guides were made invalid because there was a suspicion that non narrative fiction would have authors making things up in order to fill a page count, and the third being the actual synthesis of narrative primacy as opposed to it just being vaguely implied by T:CANON. Neither I nor Scrooge, from what I can tell, can find where these gaps might be filled. Which is, quite frankly, maddening.
 * I can't comment on the other examples, but The Cosmology of the Spiral Politic is very clearly Type A. It refers to The City of the Saved as an existing place and the events of Warlords of Utopia as something that actually happened.
 * I absolutely despise the support/oppose/neutral/comments format. I supported the thread being brought up for discussion in the temporary forums specifically to argue against it. I would suggest, if you want to do something like that, that you reformat them to be in the exact opposite order, because in a forum thread comments should be the most important part of the issue and should be something everyone reads before making up their mind. Najawin ☎  22:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

T:NO RW
You remember that there was an ongoing thread about the scope of T:NO RW when the forums closed, right? Part of it was about common sense inferences like these. (Specifically in how we write pages using verbs in the example I gave, but the policy implications would have been larger.) Current policy, as written, is pretty clearly against these statements. (Arguably they're T:BOUND to be at the start of pages through inaction, but not that many pages have them. I've found that they're largely on pages that User:Ebyabe created, or are artifacts from page rewrites that nobody bothered to remove.) Najawin ☎  00:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Sum41Champ literally got banned not long ago for edit warring with these changes at Widow so I'm surprised to see him back and immediately doing it again, I'm even more surprised that Epsilon is also seemingly doing the same. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  00:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * (Well, it wasn't the warring. It was repeated refusal to listen to admins and experienced users telling them to abide by T:NO RW as well as other policies. But, yes, Widow is the page in question that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Sum41Champ had been doing this on many other pages and has been blocked multiple times as a result.) Najawin ☎  01:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That is by definition warring? Even if it is one-sided. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  01:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Wallbank
The image you keep reverting to is not of the preferred aspect ratio (widescreen) nor of the minimum aspect ratio ("Anything less than 4:3, but particularly anything with a height greater than the width, should be avoided. Please carefully crop your images to avoid "tall" pictures, or they may be summarily deleted."). Out of universe pages still have to ensure that the face is easily visible from the thumbnail alone, you have already indicated you are aware is the case. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  11:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, T:BOUND. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  13:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * What point do you think I'm trying to prove? Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  14:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Block
Hi Epsilon. Firstly, my condolences about your grandfather. I understand that that's a really tough thing to be dealing with and can definetly cause someone to act irrationally at times. However, I do not feel that that excuses the T:NPA that you made today. Although I am aware of your circumstances here, calling someone blind without context as as an insult is in no way acceptable. This leaves with no choice but to block you for a month.

T:NPA is not the only policy violation that leads me to this block, however. I also feel that you have violated T:IBOX WARS. Personal attacks are not the way to resolve a disagreement over images, or anything else for that matter. Similarly, you have clearly violated T:NO WARS. Edit wars really are good for absolutely nothing. Had you stepped away in the early stages of this conflict, this entire block could have been avoided. I urge you to do this in future.

Then there's the image policies, T:GTI T:ICC and T:IBOX PICS. While you're correct that square images are technically allowed, crops similar to Jack's are, under current policy, far more preferred. Moreover, Jack's crop is far tighter which is also preferred. T:IBOX PICS also cleary applies to all infoboxes, not just in-universe ones, and again specifies the widescreen preference. If I'm being honest, I'm not the largest fan of all of these image policies but we are bound by current policy and cannot just go ignoring rules we don't like willy-nilly. Certainly, edit summaries are not the way to change policies. This is what the forums, including the current temporary forums, are for. Indeed, the proposed thread about image policies is currently second in terms of support and only awaiting an opening post. If you feel this strongly about this policy, it would have been far more constructive to draft an opening post. That would have had far more chance of causing a policy change. Finally, while Tardis does not currently have a specific policy for this, assuming good faith is relatively standard among most wikis and is frankly essential for their successful function. Claiming a T:POINT violation when all Jack was doing was following policy is a clear violation of good faith and is not something conductive to good editing.

Again, my condolences about your grandfather and I hope you're able to use this time away from the wiki to destress a little.

Finally, a little technical note: the reason that your link to rule of thirds didn't work is that wikipedia: is the interwiki prefix for Wikipedia. w: is for Fandom (previously Wikia) Community Central. Bongo50  ☎  19:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey. I'm sorry to hear about your grandfather. I've this week dropped out of my Master's course due to a sexual assault, so I don't think either of us need silly wiki drama at the moment. We do always seem to be on opposite sides of any discussion, but please accept my condolences. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  12:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Following a message from Jack at User talk:Bongolium500, I have decided to shorten your block from 4 weeks to 3 weeks. This means there is now 1 week remaining. I hope you're doing ok. Bongo50   ☎  20:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Re: Temporary forums
Go right ahead. MrThermomanPreacher ☎  17:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Torchwood House
Hi Epsilon. Sorry, I wasn't aware - as per your instruction I'll leave off making any further pages relating to the tie-in websites for the time being. Thanks for letting me know. 66 Seconds ☎  23:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

btw, when you have time
Your input would be appreciated at Tardis:Temporary forums/Slot 5: Validity: The Book of the Enemy's Biographies of Authors. Najawin ☎  18:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Doctor of War editing
Hello Epsilon, hope you're well. I've been wondering for a long time how exactly to progress the discussion on Talk:Dust Devil (audio story) concerning this wiki's coverage of the Doctor of War stories, as it's now been over 6 months since anyone other than myself contributed to that discussion. As the editor who began this discussion all the way back when Doctor of War: Genesis released in April 2022, as well as (I think) the only admin who has been involved in that discussion, I thought I'd try reaching out to you to see if you could help me possibly resolve the discussion. I've also noticed over the last few months that despite the Cleanup tag on Dust Devil (audio story) requesting that info on Doctor of War characters/events/things not be added to the pages of their N-Space counterparts, such edits are now somewhat common across the wiki; in particular, the page Fourth Doctor (The Warrior's universe) was created despite the Cleanup tag explicitly using the Fourth Doctor as an example of the kinds of edits that should not be done until the discussion had been resolved. At this point, it's as if some editors have chosen to ignore the progress of the discussion entirely so that there can be at least some kind of coverage of the Doctor of War stories on the wiki, and admittedly, I can empathise with them here. I would really like to begin editing on pages relating to Doctor of War, but until the discussion on Talk:Dust Devil (audio story) has been resolved in some manner, I fear that doing so could lead to negative repercussions regarding my ability to edit on the wiki in the first place. As an admin, if you can think of any way to possibly resolve this, I would really appreciate it (I could maybe try the Temporary Forums, although I fear that would primarily involve repeating the entire discussion all over again). Thalek Prime Overseer ☎  15:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I'm sorry for any confusion; I initially thought you were an admin due to your rather unique signature compared to most other editors, but realised quite quickly afterwards that users with their names rendered in bold are likely admins, although I wasn't entirely sure enough to reply to my comment on your talk page. Thanks also for the link to Tardis:Administrators. I forgot that page existed so I'll be sure to check that whenever I want to talk to an admin. I also reached out to you specifically because you were the editor who began the discussion at Talk:Dust Devil (audio story) all those months ago, not just because I thought you were an admin. Regardless, thank you for your help, I'll message one of the admins about that talk page shortly (sometimes I worry that I pester @User:Scrooge MacDuck with how much I've messaged them in the past though). Thalek Prime Overseer ☎  13:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Ninth Doctor - Have You Seen This Man?
Hello, there. Firstly, thank you for achieving what I failed at years ago; getting the Whoisdoctorwho.co.uk context on the Ninth Doctor's solo exploits validated. Now those unseen adventures are free for us editors to explore and add to his journey. Now, down to business, I was planning to update the Doctors pages in November (mostly the psychological profiles and introductions), and have been using my Sandbox pages to get the ground work done, though I'll obviously exclude the invalid information and headcanon edits from the main pages. As you'll see in my Ninth Doctor page, I haven't yet updated it with information from Have You Seen This Man?, because I wanted to edit it into my sandbox in bulk. This is why I'm contacting you. I wanted to know if you had completed your coverage of Have You Seen This Man?, and, if not, how far you were in completing it, as I was hoping to update my Ninth Doctor sandbox in July so I can make my self-made November deadline.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to hearing back from you. Sincerely, BananaClownMan ☎  09:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Reverted Edit
Why, how, and what do you mean? CaptainKaibyo ☎  19:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Tie-in websites
Hi there, I've been looking at User:Epsilon the Eternal/Alternate reality games/Tie-in websites, and it's really good. Have you noticed Into the Unknown (series) which seems to fall under the general umbrella of what you're doing on there? :) Aquanafrahudy  📢  16:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh, also the Vince Cosmos tie-in website, which sounds right up your street (although as it's not a Doctor Who tie-in website, it might be a little outside the remit of the page). Aquanafrahudy   📢   12:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

TLDR
Hey, congrats on the fandom star thing. Just saw that. If you read the intro and the conclusion you'll get the rough outline of the post. The actual arguments and evidence are within the full text, so I'd suggest maybe reading intro+conclusion then the whole thing, or if you're particularly interested in specific bits go searching for them in the relevant sections. Cheers. Najawin ☎  18:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Roland Rat
Hi Epsilon, mind if I contribute over at User:Epsilon the Eternal/Sandbox Four? I've been watching the Roland Rat crossover, and I would like to expand it a little. Many thanks, Aquanafrahudy  📢  17:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I think I've added just about all I can to it, would you mind if I started a talk page discussion about it? Or do you think it would require a forum thread? Much thanks, Aquanafrahudy   📢   16:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Okay. Do you mind if I start the thread or do you want to?- Aquanafrahudy   📢   16:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Great! Thanks! Aquanafrahudy   📢   17:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Moving pages
I saw in your edit notes on Laundrette (The Edge of Time) that non-admin can move pages. I had no idea this was a thing so just wanted to double check on whether I can do this. Thanks! StevieGLiverpool ☎  13:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I dunno about you, but that thread left me feeling a little disoriented.
In other news, I'd appreciate your comments at Forum:10 Years on, Amnesty Once More whenever you have the time. Question 4.1 might be of interest to you (and I suspect Scrooge and Nate as well, though I'm guessing on Scrooge). Najawin ☎  20:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries, completely get that. If you didn't get in on the ground floor it's one that's hard to keep up with. Najawin ☎  17:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Re: T:NPA
I just saw your attempted apology at User talk:DrWHOCorrieFan pursuant to Talk:Fifteenth Doctor. While the speed is appreciated, the wording strikes me as somewhat insufficient. In the first place, you primarily stand accused of failing to assume good faith, not a personal attack. Furthermore your wording was objectively out of line; it's not enough for you to say that you didn't intend it that way but are sorry if DrWHOCorrieFan interpreted it negatively. You simply should not have written it, and I need to know that you understand that, and will do better in the future. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 23:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Re: The Doctor's sonic screwdriver
Yes, you have permission to use any of my sandboxes to aid in creating your OP to split this page, and you're not stepping on my toes by doing so. Happy OP-crafting!Cousin Ettolrahc ☎  20:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Re: Bot run
Absolutely. I'm on it now. Bongo50  ☎  18:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia
I don't think there is a need for one. MrThermomanPreacher ☎  11:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

RE: Poetry
Yes, I had thought that too, but I looked at other poems on the wiki and presumably they hadn't been changed yet. Thanks :) Aquanafrahudy   📢   18:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Non-valid Continuity sections, categories, and prefixes question
Why, hello.

I wanted to ask if you could help me with something. I've been trying to find the new policy that dictates that continuity sections are now to be written with an out of universe perspective going forward, mainly because I plan to challenge it on the grounds that the continuity section references in-universe events, but I can't find anything specific within Forum:Non-valid Continuity sections, categories, and prefixes. Since you are the main advocate for the policy, I was hoping you could give me the abridged version of this forum, focusing on the parts relevant to how continuity sections are addressed, to help me understand and maybe come around to this new line of thinking.

Thank you for your time, Sincerely, BananaClownMan ☎  09:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. BananaClownMan ☎  13:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Rose Noble
I'd like to apologise for thoughtlessly adding Rose's deadname to the lead in her article. I just want you to know that I'm not a horrible person and I do support trans people. Good job removing my stupidity from the article. Xbsv ☎  22:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits
Looking into some of your recent edits specifically relating to the use of edit summaries, please use the edit summaries for edit summaries, not to engage in discussions regarding the edits, and / or the preceding editors' edits. Put that on the page's talk page or create a forum topic if it's got a wider wiki-concern.

I know in the past we've had a more relaxed attitude to edit summaries, but they should be there to explain what has been changed. Not to engage in discussion/commentary of the changes. Put yourself in the position of an editor wading through edit summaries trying to work out what's been changed, it should be informative to the changes.

Don't try to engage in an edit war with the edit summaries, there's better places to engage in discussion regarding these matters, if it's a matter of a more recent article engage an admin and the page can be locked to prevent editing until the vexing issue is resolved.

And if there's something with some ambiguity where an edit war may arise, then support your position with an talk page, forum discussion or policy that backs up that edit change. --Tangerineduel / talk 01:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)