User talk:41.133.0.68

'''Welcome to the 41.133.0.68 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! Thing is, though, to play the game, you do need to be logged in.

Don't get us wrong: you don't need to have a registered account to make a lot of great edits around here. But you may find that there are good reasons to create an account. For a start, we could call you by a name instead of 41.133.0.68.

Even if you decide not to register, you should be aware that we've got a couple of important quirks for a Wikia wiki. 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 users 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. -- Tangerineduel (Talk) 14:51, 12 July 2012

Sign talk comments
Please remember to sign your talk page comments. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:59, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

Block
You are blocked for three days because it's obvious you're mostly interested in challenging this wiki's policies. Debate is fine around here, of course, but T:CAN and T:VS seems to be a bit of an obsession with you — so much so that you are introducing pages — like the now-deleted Season 18B — which obviously test the limits of our policies.

It is clear that you are trying to trick the other editors of this wiki into violating our policies.

I'm sorry that you apparently disagree with the limits we place on our wiki, but we've gone out of our way to explain the policies and the necessity for them. It is time for you now to decide whether you wish to edit here within the bounds of T:CAN.

Your position has been clearly heard. You've gotten our attention. But our policies are not going to substantially change because of your arguments, since your arguments are not particularly novel. Our policies are the result of eight years of debate, with a wide variety of different opinion — including a substantial part of your own argument — incorporated therein.

Our policies, in short, are the result of an exhaustive community decision. If you cannot live with that, please do not edit here. 19:49: Sun 29 Jul 2012

1)As I';m blocked, I would just like to point out here that the usage of characters "crossing over from the Doctor Who Universe into Torchwood" clearly means that Torchwood is not part of the "Doctor Who Universe".

2)Policies change. I wasn't trying to "trick" anyone. I was merely pointing out the immediately obvious flaws in the current policies. Sadly, I HAD brought this up on talk:tardis canon policy, and on individual article's talk pages. I was very rudely brushed aside. The next step was to explain, point-but-point the inconsistencies in the "policy". If you honestly think it's "Trying to trick" someone to point out that "policies" only work when they are used uniformly, then I have nothing but sympathy for you. The rules applied to one article, need to uniformly.

3)I have come to a simple conclusion, which is this: You don't understand how Doctor Who works. By which I mean the totality of everything that applies to it from 1963-present. Specifically you simply don't understand the way the BBC worked in the 60's, 70's or 80's. You are attempting to apply the same criteria for the way something like "Star Trek" or perhaps "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" works to Doctor Who. Which is wrong. The way the BBC functioned from 1963-1989(and indeed the way the BBC still functions TODAY) is in a totally different, ahem, universe, to US Television, or even to non-BBC British television. Many people today simply can't comprehend that a Corporation even would destroy old episodes. Many people also believe as fact that the show was cancelled in 1985 and/or 1989. Others think the Doctor Who Producer to be an equivalent to George Lucas or Joss Whedon or Gene Roddenberry, which is simply not true. Any attempt to create a "canon" or a "Doctor Who Universe" WILL fail. Because, even though people may use the term today, no two people quite agree on what the terms actually mean. Yet you insist that it an absolute term, and yet need to exclude official BBC productions, which the BBC themselves list as being official from this "universe".

4)The wonderful thing about this is that you claim to be Doctor Who fans. Why? Because what would the Doctor himself make of this? You insist that the "Doctor Who Universe article will never be deleted!" yet you still can't adequately explain what it even is. In your need to give some shape to it, you are forced to remove an official BBC Production "Dimensions in Time". You also insist that the books obviously count...but must then remove PDA #64, oh and the Target books but only where they contradict the DWU. People sweat blood over whether BBV or Reeltime would count, but not something like the Dalek Comic Strips, which do contradict the "DWU". Lines from the television episodes themselves are simply thrown out of the "DWI" (eg. "I'm from 1980" or "live forever barring accidents". Basically you set up a system for this wiki. It seemed like a good idea at the time. someone has pointed out the flaws, and suggested alternatives, and you can't handle that. You have as much as admitted that your policies are hopelessly self-contradictory and unworkable, but they are YOUR policies, and this is YOUR wiki. A-NY-DIS-SEN-TERS-WILL-BE-BLOCKED-FOR-THREE-DAYS-BY-THE-AD-MINS-AD-MINS-E-DIT-AND-BLOCK-A-NY-ONE-WHO-DOES-NOT-O-BEY

5)Don't bother with anything else regarding me. Why? Because I have no interest in a small group of narrowminded people pushing THEIR personal ideas of "Canon" on me anymore. And yes, the "DWU" is the same thing as canon. Because by selecting certain adventures as "part of the DWU" and others as "non-DWU adventures" you are defining a canon. you may call it something different, but it's the same thing. You also have no respect for the show itself, as your comments about "DWU" and what "WE" have discussed and "WE" have agreed to shows.

Here's an idea:write the wiki in the same way that the BBC write about Doctor Who. You know the people who created the show, and make it, and own the rights etc.

No?Of course that's not what "We" decided is valid. since when is the BBC a valid source when it comes to Doctor Who? "WE" make policy, we are the final word. Steven Moffat as is nothing compared to the brilliance that is TangerineDuel!

Good luck enforcing your self-contradictory "policies", and analysing why "An Unearthly Child" can't possibly be "part of the DWU" because Susan said that SHE came up with the name "TARDIS" in that.

The Last Word on the "Universe"
Ha. Here's a link from the BBC's own website. You know the BBC? The people who created Doctor Who, and whose word on it is final. Anyway:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/vampires/newstory/scottwright.shtml

Read under "author's notes", especially the third paragraph. Yes, that is definitive. According to the BBC themselves, "the Feast of the Stone" IS part of the "Doctor Who Universe", So i was wrong, there IS a "Doctor Who Universe" and "The Feast of the Stone" IS part of it. Although "not according to this wiki" for reasons that no one will ever explain. The only "explanation" is "we have been discussing this for a long time". Well, there's a universe(hehe) of difference between "discussing" something and actually coming to a clear, meaningful conclusion. Nobody here will ever come to any proper conclusion. It is enough that it has been discussed before, even if nobody had any idea what they were actually talking about. Oh, and by the way:

The BBC's word on Doctor Who> some meaningless "discussion" by people who are not connected to the show at all.

Put that in your nasty abusive pipes and smoke it. 41.133.0.68talk to me 10:52, July 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Abusive? No member of the administrative staff has at any point been abusive in the discussion of this matter with you.  We've all bent over backwards to answer your questions specifically and with great patience.  I simply will not stand for having me or any of the staff characterized as abusive after the hours of work we've all put in answering your questions.  Especially when what you're arguing for is the most marginal of Doctor Who literature.


 * Once again, we're not saying there can't be an article about a priorly licensed product. You can even refer to such a product within the "behind the scenes" section of an article. The only thing we're saying is that there are a few stories which you cannot use in writing the in-universe section of articles.  That's it.


 * As for other points raised:


 * 1) The BBC's word on Doctor Who would indeed be greater than any discussion we could mount here. Problem is, they've no word to give. So we're stuck with making decisions of our own.  No one here is at all pretending they're perfect decisions, or that they have much meaning outside this wiki.  Please stop trying to characterize us as people who aren't aware of all this.
 * 2) Your example isn't much of an example. In no part of "The Feast of Stone" website do the BBC say anything about the DWU.  You're reading the words of Wright/Cavan, not the BBC.  (You should have been paying more attention to the second paragraph, not the third.)  And, it should be pointed out, this comes from a time prior to the new series invalidation of Shalka.  It's extremely telling that this not a part of bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic, but rather bbc.co.uk/cult/vampire.  If the BBC firmly believed it a part of the DWU, it'd be on their DW pages, wouldn't it?


 * I assure you again that your thoughts have been heard, and that they are largely incorporated in our policy. (Of course, this is largely because you've not really offered anything new; your arguments have been advanced at other points in this discussion.) The vast majority of BBC licensed products are indeed considered valid for the writing of in-universe articles here. You are fighting for something less than .1% of all BBC-licensed stories.


 * I think it's clear at this point that you don't like our policies on canon, and that's your right. But our policies aren't going to change much.  And at this point, there's really very little else we can offer in the way of explanation that will satisfy you.  If you do come back to edit with us, please drop your attempts to change or debate this policy.  They're only wasting your time and ours.  Worse, your arguments are coming ever closer to being personal attacks upon the administrative staff.  00:46: Tue 31 Jul 2012