User talk:CzechOut

Unanswered question
When he took her home on Earth in 2005 after she saw the planet burn up and there was nothing but rocks and dust in 5,000,000,000, why did he finally told her about the Time War, the death of his people, his planet burned and that he is the last of his species? (http://tardis.wikia.com/d/p/2895919597658048401) Doctor 25 ☎  11:30, December 14, 2016 (UTC)

Infidel's Comet
See Thread:191574 again. --Pluto2 (talk) 01:00, December 17, 2016 (UTC)

Thread:206566
Your input would be nice in Thread:206566. It would be best if you read the entire thread before replying. Fwhiffahder ☎  19:32, December 18, 2016 (UTC)

... in light of recent events, I think the thread could use a different representative on your talk page! So I'd like to second the request for your thoughts in Thread:206566 :) NateBumber ☎  00:29, December 28, 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should reread. An enormous amount of evidence was given in favor of inclusion, and you ignored it in favor of a software issue. At this stage, it's worth it. You ignored the fact that the authors elsewhere confirmed that they were who they said they were, and that plenty of evidence, such as the Cwejen, was given to support validity. It's entirely worth the effort of merging, and your closing statement reads more like as bizarre advertisement for Wikia software than a rebuttal. I'm in no way attacking you. I just want you to reread the entire thread, as that closing response feels like a slap in the face. --Pluto2 (talk) 09:29, December 28, 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, here's this: If the FP Wiki wants to cover Doctor Who stuff, let them. Or we could import the new pages and rewrite the combined ones. --Pluto2 (talk) 09:55, December 28, 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with Pluto2. What's particularly galling is that it is you, personally, and your policy of not allowing anyone on the FP wiki to actually post anything useful because of your unsupported views of "canon" (along with your unwillingness either to update the front page to acknowledge that the last five years have happened or to allow anyone else to do so), that has meant that the FP wiki is completely useless. Saying "use the FP wiki", when it is not usable specifically because of your own decisions, is just insulting. The copyright "issue" is also a non-issue, given that the vast majority of the FP wiki is currently just stubs. By domain-squatting the FP wikia and filling it with outright lies like "it is not a part of the DWU" and "the odd novel or short story does occasionally surface, as most recently happened in 2011" you are doing an immense disservice to anyone who actually cares about Faction Paradox, as you clearly don't. Your personal animosity towards FP is obvious, despite a pretence at objectivity that's fooling no-one. Give up your administrative role at the Faction Paradox wikia and hand it over to someone who is an actual member of Faction Paradox fandom (I'd be more than happy to take over the role, as would several other people who posted in that thread) or admit that you are actively trying to harm FP fandom. AndrewHickey ☎  14:41, December 28, 2016 (UTC)

Just two posts above yours Tangerineduel said that: "The "too hard basket" argument for re-integration isn't a valid one, not for this discussion. The FP Wiki's state of disarray is not something that should affect this discussion here."

As was said many times in the thread, there's no rush. By popping in for a few hours to get rid of everything you didn't like, you didn't give the thread the time that it deserved. You just threw out a non sequitur and stopped everyone else from responding! From what I understand, none of the problems you brought up are impossible to solve. Couldn't one just import the pages here as separate pages and then merge them afterwards? Couldn't the legion of non-admin who support reintegration deal with the other problems? Perhaps we could even start from scratch?

What I'm trying to say is: could you find the time to make a response to the points brought up in the thread? CoT    ?  15:25, December 28, 2016 (UTC)

Becoming an Admin
http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Adoption:Doctor_Who_Answers

Doctor 25 ☎  18:53, December 25, 2016 (UTC)

Your thoughts
I don't know if this is how one goes about it but, what are your thoughts on my nominating User:OncomingStorm12th. See link.

http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Tardis:User_rights_nominations - Sir DENCH-and-PALMER   ☎  23:27, December 27, 2016 (UTC)

Re: Closing the Faction Paradox debate
Hi! Thanks for your response to Thread:206566, although it wasn't quite the one I was expecting. Don't worry, this isn't an angry rant! I just want to address a few of your points and propose a compromise.

First, I'm confused whether you plan to change the four little rules to highlight what you said re:balancing in that thread. Those were the grounds on which I conducted the discussion: I saw FP listed as a Rule 4 violation, so I detailed the many, many reasons why it is not. You mention that the matter of authorial intent seems to have stemmed from Vienna, but in reality I got it from the text of Rule 4 ("if a story was intended to be set outside the DWU ...") and your past quoting of a Lawrence Miles interview to justify the removal. Please note that no one "had" authors come to the thread; per the Facebook link, it appears that they found and posted in the thread of their own volition, and frankly, they weren't needed: I had already procured ample evidence that Rule 4 wasn't violated from Lawrence Miles' own words and actions as well as others' properly-sourced statements.

Second, you reference that you're remembering the opinions of extreme exclusion fans, but those guys aren't who's using this Wiki! Based on the posts in that thread, the TW's current editors either (1) want FP, (2) don't care, or (3) realize that it won't affect them. And for readers, any wiki that includes Iris Wildthyme is not going to lose readers based on inclusion for Faction Paradox. In contrast to the exclusionists, the Faction Paradox fandom has exponentially increased in size due to Obverse's new range. I, for one, am a user who gives a personal, on-my-word guarantee that I will do the majority of the editing, if need be; I've already begun revamping multiple existing articles that relate to the Faction Paradox series. Just waiting for your go-ahead :)

Finally, you said “there's no reason why you can't make a great, well-linked article over there”, but throughout the thread we mentioned several times that it's futile to write a Faction Paradox article without referencing Doctor Who, something that the rules of these two wikis make completely impossible. I see three different users in that thread who discussed their experiences trying to contribute to the FP Wiki and realizing it was pointless for that reason. I don't think this is something a new admin could fix; even changing the rule would still lead to unnecessary duplication of content! (We ended this train of discussion in the thread when an admin said technical matters were irrelevant to inclusion.)

And now for the compromise! :) I propose that nothing be done about the FP Wiki and that TW's inclusion policies simply be updated (per the Four Little Rules) to not explicitly exclude Faction Paradox. This satisfies your two criteria of "posing no problem to the quality of contributions" and "avoiding technical challenges of re-merging" while simultaneously satisfying the wants of the editors (as expressed in that thread). Furthermore, avoiding reintegration would allow FP material to grow here naturally and not force it onto this community; as you said, the articles on the FP wiki aren't a gold standard, so why would we want them transferred here? Instead, let's passively ignore them and move forward. The FP Wiki would (eventually) become like the Sarah Jane Adventures Wiki: existing as a source, but completely redundant to its better-quality cousin. I personally pledge to do any and all edits to Tardis Wiki concerning FP material without looking at the other one, and I offer to check others' edits to FP-related pages here to make sure they're not copy-pasting (or that if they do, they link to the edit history of the FP article to satisfy CC-BY-SA).

I think this is an amenable compromise that simultaneously upholds the Four Little Rules and allows for growth. Please let me know if it's okay; I just want to see this sorted! NateBumber ☎  14:30, December 28, 2016 (UTC)