User talk:Amorkuz

Martian's in Iris Wildthyme
Amorkus,

Just seen your message on User:NateBumber's talk page about the Martian's in Iris Wildthyme particulary their invasion of the alternate paris in 1894. I've just finished reading Enter Wildthyme the novel in which this happens, so if you want more information then ask. I have listened to Goodbye Piccadilly so won't be able to add any information from that one.

Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 08:19, July 6, 2018 (UTC)

Infobox Story update
Hi. I was adding the new parameters of in Short Trips (series) pages, and noticed that (series) doesn't get dabbed like (audio series) does, making the information display a bit weird. When you have the time, I'd appreciate if you could update it. Thanks. OncomingStorm12th ☎  20:27, July 6, 2018 (UTC)

Series pages
Oh, believe, there are no hard feelings at all. Most of my edits to these pages were following in the footsteps of what was already there, but I wasn't quite happy with the way the info was presented as well. As you said, there was hardly any uniformity.

In fact, you can see that my edits to these pages were mostly creating redlinks to "Series n" pages, when we started making them. So the fact that you're taking the time to finetune their content makes me quite happy. ;) OncomingStorm12th ☎  23:18, July 6, 2018 (UTC)

The Undertaking of Planet 4
Thank you for bringing this to my attention! Your memories prove correct; the Wellsian Martians and their invasion played a role in several, as you say, wild thymes. I recall that Fwhiffahder was planning to rewrite Martian back in the day, but that never materialised, and frankly I think there's a whole collection of pages centered around the Martian tripods that could use major updates. Perhaps I'll start on it this Martes? Either way, I'll make sure to check out Goodbye Piccadilly posthaste!

Hope you've been well :) – N8 ☎ 03:38, July 7, 2018 (UTC)

BSSR
Oops, sorry. Just for checking then: these apply all the way to Dead Man's Switch then, right? If so, I'll go back and switch it. OncomingStorm12th ☎  18:45, July 7, 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll start changing them to BSSR from where you stopped. As with the box-set being marketed as #12, #13 etc, I'm not sure. Will look research it at the site and the Vortex (I really love that we have such a rich magazine for researching stuff for BF). When/if I find something, I'll come back here. OncomingStorm12th ☎  19:01, July 7, 2018 (UTC)
 * So, the references to Bernice Summerfield Box Sets on Vortex I managed to find were:


 * VOR 36 - Bernice Summerfield Box Set 2: Road Trip / Bernice Summerfield Box Set 3: Legion (on "Forthcoming Releases")
 * VOR 43 - no reference to numbernig on article "Brax to Basics", but refered to as Bernice Summerfield Box Set 3: Leigon on "Forthcoming Releases". Also Bernice Summerfield: New Frontiers Box Set is present on "Forthcoming Releases"
 * VOR 50 - Bernice Summerfield: New Frontiers Box Set / Bernice Summerfield: Missing Persons Box Set (on "Forthcoming Releases")
 * Anyway, it seems like they were truly marketed as #1, #2, etc. rather than continuing the previous numbering. OncomingStorm12th ☎  19:33, July 7, 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. As you've mentioned these prefixes for Torchwood releases: Big Finish Torchwood series has been bothering me for a while. It was perfect when Big Finish began releasing them back in 2015, but they've grown and expanded. So I've been thinking in a way to better cover them. However, I believe this will be better made in a few months. The reason for this message is to see if you find a broader name for releases for post-series 4 releases such as Aliens Among Us. Until then, I'll keep thinking/trying to find one as well. OncomingStorm12th ☎  19:43, July 7, 2018 (UTC)

Removing categories off pictures
Hello, I just uploaded a picture of the Time Lord Hedigar to use on his page. Only, I used the wrong category and I don't know how to remove it. If you could remove it or tell me how to, that'd be great, thanks. The picture is Hedigar.jpg. Ben Moore512 ☎  20:00, July 13, 2018 (UTC)
 * Heh, just realised I didn't say what was the wrong category. It's The Day of the Doctor TV story images. Thanks again. Ben Moore512 ☎  20:03, July 13, 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that User:Danochy has removed all the content from their talk page for a second time, in the process also removing messages from admins. The first time I reverted it and stated in the edit summary that it was vandalism but since it has happened again I thought the best course of action would be to contact you before it became something more. Hope your well, Borisashton ☎  09:31, July 15, 2018 (UTC)
 * Never mind, you've sorted it now. --Borisashton ☎  09:34, July 15, 2018 (UTC)

Series 4 incorrect dating
Hello. I'm just leaving this here so as to bring it to your attention. I noticed not that long ago that there is something wrong with pages affiliated with some Series 4 episode pages. Some episodes, such as 'Partners in Crime', 'The Sontaran Experiment', etc, all have it on their Main Setting sections of the infobox that the year the episodes are set in is 2009. Because of the events of 'Last of the Time Lords', all the episodes set in the present day, broadcast after that one, are based in years synonymous with the year of broadcast. Added to that, a line of dialogue in 'The Fires of Pompeii' confirmed that the present day for series 4 is in 2008. This also affects the 2008 and 2009 in-universe pages. A lot of the event during series 4 in the 2009 article should be in the 2008. I recommend that the information be exchanged where it needs to be while relation to 'The Year That Never Was' should be made a separate linked template at the top of both the 2008 and 2009 pages. I felt as if I should notify you about this before I did anything about it. Thank you. BelcherMorganJames ☎  22:13, July 16, 2018 (UTC)

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


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

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

Now We Are Six Hundred thread
Hi, the inclusion debate for the anthology, Now We Are Six Hundred has been open since December and hasn't seen any action since February. It would be appreciated if you could take a look at it when you have time in regard to its closure. Obviously its up to the admins when it is time to close a thread but it has been dead for a while now. Thanks for your time. --Borisashton ☎  12:16, July 22, 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Re: SJA narrative trailers
Hey, sorry for the late response, I don't get notifications any more. I put the invalid template on the other two trailer pages for now, per existing policy, pending any resolution from Thread:224324. Thanks, Shambala108 ☎  23:23, July 27, 2018 (UTC)

Personal attack
Hi, a user personally attacked me in | this edit. Just thought I'd let you know so you can take the necessary action since it offended me. Thanks in advance. --Borisashton ☎  00:08, July 29, 2018 (UTC)

Missing episodes
All the stories in Season 4 have missing episodes so I put Category:Stories with missing episodes in Category:Season 4 stories and removed the now redundant categories from the individual pages. --Borisashton ☎  15:25, July 31, 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that makes sense. I did think briefly about new episodes being found. I'll stick the category back on the individual categories soon. Presumably you're alright with me doing a similar thing with Category:Third Doctor television stories etc. since that sort of thing will never change and it helps highlighting one-off appearances in later series? --Borisashton ☎  15:43, July 31, 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nicholas II
On Tsar Nicholas II there which I edited his page on this wiki which you undid is that there is an historical inaccuracy that he was overthrown and killed during the October Revolution in 1917. In the real world he was overthrown during the February Revolution and his rule was replaced by a provisional government which was overthrown during the October Revolution by the Bolsheviks led by Lenin in 1917. Nicholas II alongside his family were placed under house arrest and moved several times until being moved to the Ipatiev House in Yekaterinburg, Russia. In July 1918 he was murdered alongside his family and several servants by their guards. Unless "The Wages of Sins" (which I haven't read) specifically mentions that he was overthrown and killed during the October Revolution then I feel that it's okay to edit the article. Also I typed that Nicholas II is the great-grandson of Nicholas I which I checked several times so I feel that's okay.

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

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

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

Question about appearances
May I ask, why aren't the appearances I added counted as appearances? I ask this since you're one of two admins who remove my edits. Just want to know why.

Re: discussions
Thanks for the info. Shambala108 ☎  00:16, September 4, 2018 (UTC)

Thirteenth Doctor
Hi, sorry if I stepped out of line there by just changing the page, but I think it's utterly uncontroversial that "Avatars" was officially released after Christmas 2017. And also, well, sorry about some of the things I did about exactly a year ago now. Completely agree that even if Avatars was officially released before TUaT it would be more than a bit wrong to have it as the first appearance. CoT    ?  03:34, September 9, 2018 (UTC)

Re: Reaching Out
Hiya. Right, weird one this. So I'll give my opinion of what I think we should do rather than stick rigidly to the rules. My personal view is that the Thirteenth Doctor first appeared in Twice Upon A Time. Technically, yeah, it is in the Lucy Wilson book, but really its just a cheeky cameo rather than a fully-fledged first appearance.

My stance on CJB is that they're a part of the DWU, even if they only hold the rights to a few of the characters in it. It's nice seeing Thirteen and others obliquely showing up in their stories, but in the intrests of common sense the line has to be towed somewhere. So yeah, as its clearly intended to be by the BBC, I'd say that Twice Upon A Time is the one we should use. I don't know where you stand on the subject, but I've no intention of starting any explosive edit wars over such a trivial issue. I'm open to any opinions on the subject, so fire away with what you're thinking. :) --Revan\Talk 11:47, September 10, 2018 (UTC)

Fairy Godfather and other pantos
I first identified those actors as playing the relevant characters simply by sound. I later found a website that confirmed it but I can't for the life of me find it now. I'll see you know if I can. GusF ☎  09:34, September 17, 2018 (UTC)

User committing vandalism
Hi, I thought I'd bring to your attention that User: Yourname naked is, for some reason, committing some weird vandalism to Karen Gillian's page. Ben Moore512 ☎  19:28, September 17, 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I've just noticed they've uploaded a new picture for Karen that's used for her main page and......it's not great. Ben Moore512 ☎  19:31, September 17, 2018 (UTC)

Multi-verse
Hi, just saw your post about the multi-verse thing. I know it's been a while since you did it, but I've just been inactive frankly. Thanks for your the note, that's really interesting! OS25🤙☎️ 19:17, September 19, 2018 (UTC)

Re: Oh No It Isn't
I agree with you in part about Pantoland, I need a relisten, but it's kinda an amalgamation of the two. In terms of the Pantomime characters, I think that they warrant their own pages as they are avatars in Pantoland who just happen to look like the crew of the winton due to how the perfecton missile is working with Benny's mind. Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 13:09, September 22, 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm I need to relisten, but I thought that only Benny and Wolsey were the only characters which were actually in Pantoland. Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 16:04, September 22, 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok I've done my relisten, I missed a key line of dialogue at the end of the audio where Benny mentions to Duran if he remembers what happened in Pantoland. So merging the characters makes sense as the characters in the ship are the same characters in Pantoland. We can also merge the computer the the fairy godfather as they are the same character (Benny says that the Fairy Godfather is the manifestation of the computer in the virtual world) Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 16:00, September 26, 2018 (UTC)

Re: TIDH
I'm really shocked and happy about this. I'll do some research as soon as I can, although at the moment I'm doing some work for my job. Talk to you soon! OS25🤙☎️ 02:21, September 23, 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll be honest, I'm not sure what a "template markup" is? I'm an old man at this stage, I've been off site so long, I'm sure that's some new jargon. But I thought I'd string up my thoughts on your questions here:


 * Pages that should be deleted:


 * Mind Meet! and Untitled are both redundant, as they are covered in The Incomplete Death's Head.


 * Pages that should be moved:


 * Tuck should be moved to Tuck (Robot of Sherwood) to make room for Tuck (The Incomplete Death's Head).


 * It seems that you have the rest figured out, I trust your judgment. OS25🤙☎️ 03:30, September 23, 2018 (UTC)

Unbound TARDISes
Hello. I was wondering if I could add a few of the Unbound TARDISes to the Individual TARDISes page? I was told by Shambala108 (sorry, I don't know how to add the user link to the message) to ask you for help and advice. Is it okay? Thank you and I look forward to your reply. --Saint2 ☎  14:39, September 25, 2018 (UTC)

File:When he was a woman
Hello! As you know, participating in the Prounoun Use for Time Lords discussion, I uploaded the file When he was a woman.png to illustrate a point. I had it properly licensed. I'll admit that it was over 300Ko (Though honestly, that is a woefully outdated policy for the Wiki to have; last time it was discussed in 2014 it was determined that it still had justification, but in 2018? Come on. And it was extremely difficult for me to get this file, or the Jim Broadbent one, under that draconian limit on my computer, for the record.), something I have now corrected, but your editing reason mentioned several policy violations and I couldn't figure out what the others might be.

Also, as a sort of P.S.: isn't it a bit harsh to delete the files without warning in such cases? It's not a matter of license violation — the Tardis Wiki isn't in legal trouble for having them around — so might I suggest forewarning the user when possible? It's lucky I still had the files around on my end, but I very well might have deleted them from my hard drive by the time I learned you'd deleted them here, and then they'd have been lost. Rendering the relevant post on the Pronoun Use thread nigh-incomprehensible, too. (This is just a remark! Perhaps you have perfectly good reasons. But from an outsider's perspective, I just want to note that it looks weird and kind of barbaric.)--Scrooge MacDuck ☎  09:34, October 2, 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hey, please check this out. Cheers--http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/mlp/images/1/1e/FANMADE_Rainbow_Dash_Flying.gif/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/35?cb=20130911015810 Rain   talk   16:03, October 5, 2018 (UTC)

Renaming “Ng”
Hi, I saw that you changed my rename suggestion to The Herald, however I don’t think this is necessary because she’s called Ng Throughout God Among Us 1 whereas she was only ever referred to as Gwen in-story during Aliens Among Us

The series picks up several weeks after the events of Aliens Among Us and has Ng still working for Torchwood after coming to some sort of resolve with Yvonne between sets.

So yeah, she’s revealed to be the Herald, but her name is either actually Ng, or this is the name she’s chosen to use on Earth.

Re:short stories
Well, I'm not really an expert, I only do the Short Trips, Decalogs and Benny short stories. I don't have any annuals or newer stuff, and I don't have any NuWho.

Anyway, if you have any questions or comments about any of my edits, let me know. I've been mostly editing on another wiki lately, and if I see that I've received a message I'll head over here. Shambala108 ☎  00:16, October 30, 2018 (UTC)

British English Rule
I was recently scrolling through the rules of editing on the wiki, and my attention was brought to a rule on how this wiki generally prefers the utilization of British English (i.e. spelling color as "colour"). While I do not wish to question this rule, as an American, and one who wishes to be an active contributor to this wiki, I was curious if you had any knowledge of a "go-to" source I could use to further familiarize myself with British spellings and the like. -Digiphobia &#124; Never put off until tomorrow what can be done today. ☎

From YoshiWho2020 ☎ 20:59, November 7, 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I am sorry for messing around with fan fiction. I promise not to mention the topic again on this wiki. I am sorry for not reading the full thing the first time. I promise to follow the rules of this wiki. Thank you for teaching me a lesson. If I make another mistake on the wiki, please notify me and I will take care of it as soon as possible. I also hope you can forgive me for my dumb actions. Sincerely, YoshiWho2020 ☎  20:59, November 7, 2018 (UTC)

Birth/death dates
Hi. I hate to be "that person", but, even after last week's discussion, Vincent VG is still adding unsourced birth dates to articles (just today, at least 3). Now, I might be the one who got the wrong impression from the discussion, and only death dates need sources, but in any case, I prefer to make things clear. Thanks. OncomingStorm12th ☎  20:11, November 10, 2018 (UTC)

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

Parents
The reason why I added Category:Time Lord parents to the Doctor's grandmothers because the definition of grandmother is the mother of one's mother or father. --Borisashton ☎  20:29, December 5, 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, but within the "half-human" framework, it's possible that one of these grandmothers was not at all the parent of a Time Lord, but rather of a human woman. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  20:39, December 5, 2018 (UTC)
 * I am aware of this but it is a separate debate. The question I was asked is why the grandmothers were parents. --Borisashton ☎  20:42, December 5, 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless, Time Lord family structure is not all that clear. "Cousin" means something different entirely, for instance. Within human terms, if you have two parents, they're not likely to give you seven grandparents between them. It's simply not clear what this family relationship means, in this context and for Time Lords. 20:46, December 5, 2018 (UTC)
 * Glad, my input wasn't needed. Basically, what SOTO said. Or, in more extended way, we can usually assume that a human grandmother is herself a mother because we know how human children are born. How Time Lords are born is not at all clear, what with looms, where it is stated that Time Lords are "[u]nable to procreate sexually" and what with Stoyn in The Beginning ridiculing Susan Foreman for calling the First Doctor her grandfather because there are no grandparents in their society. There is contradictory information on the procreation of Time Lords in general and independently contradictory information on the family of the Doctor. In this situation, we cannot rely on the general common knowledge and assume they must be parents. So, until they are explicitly called parents, it is not prudent to consider them as such. Amorkuz ☎  21:21, December 5, 2018 (UTC)

Potential Edit War Issue
There is an issue with an anonymous user on some of the theory pages. The theory pages in question are the timeline pages for the various Doctors. This particular user has been changing the subject headings of the various sections of these articles. Currently the subject headings reflect various periods in the life of the various Doctors, this user has been changing the headings to reflect seasons of the show, even for Doctors where it doesn't make sense like the Eighth and War Doctors. I know that theory pages don't typically follow the same rules as the rest of the site, but there is a general understanding that these articles are not to be altered in any major way without reaching a consensus with the people who put together these articles. Currently, me and a couple other users have had to reverse various edits this user has made on two occasions. I left him a stern request to stop making these edits, but since this user is anonymous, I doubt this will do the trick. Is there anything you can do about it? This is the user in question: 70.94.73.78. –Nahald ☎  02:26, December 10, 2018 (UTC)