User talk:RogerAckroydLives

'''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. Shambala108 ☎  06:49, June 6, 2015 (UTC)

Number of edits
Please try to make less edits and instead fit all the changes into one or two edits. It is fair enough that contributers forget some of the stuff they wanna change, but instead of 6 or 7 edits to span the changes you wanna make, try to fit it into two or less edits. You know, while changing one thing, try to change what else you wanna change in the same edit. Just a friendly tip. --DCLM ☎  09:51, June 26, 2015 (UTC)


 * I would also like to suggest that you use the "preview" button to check your edits before you hit "publish". If you have a mistake in one edit in the middle of a long series of edits, it's just easier for an admin to rollback your entire set of edits than to hunt and find the one mistake. So it's in your best interest to streamline things. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎  13:15, June 26, 2015 (UTC)

Silent page
Hi! Please do not ever move pages on this wiki. There are two main reasons for this: Lastly, please make sure you read Tardis:No personal attacks. The use of the word "ridiculous" when describing a debate often leads to violation of this policy, so I want to make sure you are aware it exists. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎  14:22, July 8, 2015 (UTC)
 * One, the page you moved was still under discussion. One user does not have the authority to move a page in these situations. Rather, the community agrees as a whole whether or not a page needs to be renamed/moved. This will often require discussing several of our naming policies before making a final decision.
 * In addition, only admins are allowed to move pages. The move requires several steps that non-admins don't have the ability to do. When a non-admin moves a page, it always leaves behind extra work for admins. Therefore, though it is physically possible for non-admins to move pages, we don't allow it on this wiki. Please see Thread:128198 and Thread:123493.

Categories
Hi! Please be careful when you edit. A few times, you have somehow accidentally deleted the categories from pages. Since I don't know how it's happening, I can't tell you how to avoid it, so make sure you preview edits before publishing. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎  00:57, July 12, 2015 (UTC)

The Master
Please note that, as stated in several hidden messages on the page (some of which you accidentally removed), no user is to change the headings on The Master page. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎  13:25, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

BF production codes
I noticed you've made a lot of edits at List of production codes, and I was wondering what are your sources for the Big Finish ones? In recent years, they've not been listed on the BF website, and there have never been codes for the Fourth Doctor Adventures. The code currently listed for The Burning Prince actually contradicts the one listed on the website. Are the codes listed on the physical CDs?  P&amp;P  talk   contribs  18:53, July 18, 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the info. It might be useful to make a note on the article about the sources and such.  P&amp;P  talk   contribs  13:00, July 19, 2015 (UTC)

STOP!
Look, pal, I've told you I am busy, and quiet frankly, seriously stressed out because of it. So forgive me if I don't go gallivanting towards every little debate that is going on. Good day to you, sir.BananaClownMan ☎  10:04, July 31, 2015 (UTC)

The Master
Hi! Whatever content you want to add to The Master page, you cannot change or remove the headings. This is a unique page because we have templates set up so that users can cite specific sections of the page, depending on the Master's incarnation. Removing or changing the headings makes the templates worthless, so the article has several hidden messages scattered throughout, reminding users to leave the headings as they are. Please do not continue to remove these headings. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎  13:59, August 18, 2015 (UTC)

Spelling
Hi! Please note that on this wiki, we use British spelling, as stated at Tardis:Spelling. Please correct your recent edit at The Magician's Apprentice (TV story). Thanks! Shambala108 ☎  14:44, September 24, 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi! I've noticed that a lot of your edits consist of undoing the edits of others. Yet you never provide a reason in the edit summary. I'm going to have to require you to provide a reason when you undo an edit.

Also, as a side note, User:Nahald's edit regarding the dash v. the hyphen was correct. Please see Thread:124059 for more on proper use of this punctuation.

Thanks! Shambala108 ☎  13:56, October 8, 2015 (UTC)

Claim
I feel like I need to say what the word "claim" means. It means that you tell someone something that is somewhat doubtful to some degree and can turn out to be either true or false. The Doctor telling himself to calm down to not get overly excited like when he met Shirley Bassey is not a claim. That means he once met Bassey and got extremely excited at that point as he did when encountering the ghosts. Therefore not a claim. The Doctor worried Clara had angered the ghosts as she tended to do that like when she had an argument with Gandhi. Meaning she angered Gandhi and the Doctor feared she had done the same to the ghosts. Therefore not a claim. I've noticed you like to use the word "claim", but just because it haven't been shown on-screen doesn't mean it didn't happen. --DCLM ☎  10:55, October 11, 2015 (UTC)
 * Talking to himself the Doctor tells himself to calm down before getting overly excited about the ghosts, as he had once gotten that excited, namely when he met Shirley Bassey. This cannot be a claim in that matter and thus not the correct use. --DCLM ☎  11:06, October 11, 2015 (UTC)

Re: use of "claim"
(Please note that I am leaving the same message at both User talk:Danniesen and User talk:RogerAckroydLives, just to save myself a bit of work.)

Looking over the messages on your talk pages, I think I have to side with Danniesen on this one. While the use of the word "claim" may be grammatically correct, it does have a connotation that the person doing the claiming may not be telling the truth. If you look at Tardis:Neutral point of view, you'll see that we try not to make value judgments about characters and their actions (we don't even call the Master or the Daleks "evil" unless we're attributing it to the Doctor or someone else). Therefore, to preserve an air of neutrality, I suggest the words "said" or "stated" as alternatives. Or in the specific example mentioned, that of Shirley Bassey, you could put in the references section something like "The Doctor mentioned Shirley Bassey", link to Bassey, and when the article is created a neutral explanation of the mention could be given. Hope this helps sort the issue out. Shambala108 ☎  23:40, October 11, 2015 (UTC)

Article mention
I'm terribly sorry about that. My upper-most sincerest apologies about that misunderstanding. I forgot it was said under that particular episode. You are right. I am wrong there. Hope you can forgive me. --DCLM ☎  08:17, October 12, 2015 (UTC)

Re: Forum discussion
Hi there, I'm sure I won't struggle to understand anything, so you don't need to worry about me. On rereading the forum discussion, I realise that by 'novelisation', I actually meant 'short story'. No idea how I got the two terms mixed up. Business as Usual is a short story set a few months after a novel called Business Unusual. It was just an insight into the idea of 'validity' and how we could use that example in connection to that particular scene in question.

Also upon rereading the discussion and with direction from Shambala, I can acknowledge that two phrases that I used may be seen as blunt or disrespectful, but I'd like to explain them.
 * By "Get over it", I was referring to a very wide selection of fans who refuse to accept most mediums of Doctor Who that's not on TV. It wasn't intended to be directed at you. Fans do need to get over that some aspects of established televised parts of Doctor Who are rewritten. Again, that comment was directed at that group of fans.
 * When I used "Do you even know how this Wiki works?!", I can't defend that. I can admit that it was uncalled for. However, this was me referring to short stories. For that moment, I was assuming you were dismissing them. But regardless of the subject matter, I can see that I let frustration get the better of me, so for that, I'd like to apologise.

I will just say this- I've worked on this Wiki for five years solid. I have been wholly active for that period and have added a lot of trustworthy content. As a polyglot and a grammar nerd, I also do a lot of proofreading for the Wiki to make us sound as professional as possible. And if you could see the amount of work I've been doing on the Welsh Wiki over the past month or two, you'd hopefully acknowledge and appreciate how seriously I take this Wiki- it's gone from completely empty to almost reaching 300 articles! With that in mind, I do refute the fact that I was bullying you. At no point in that discussion do I see myself coming off as a bully.

If you read it, I'm sure all you'd see is my attempt at adding more content to the discussion and more angles. I know a lot of users on here don't read the novels or watch the Classics. So I wanted to provide examples beyond New Who for any wanderers who decided to read. Whether you deemed the forum closed or not, it wasn't. And so I dropped by not realising. I wasn't going to read a couple of hundred comments before leaving my own two pence worth. I do think at the current moment, you and I are on the right page and we agree.

Anyway, it's a quarter to five in the morning and I'm having severe insomnia haha. I'm going to try to grasp any sleep available before the morning. Can we draw the line under this? It's a trivial argument/dispute to get ourselves into. I'm seriously not a bad guy, nor do I ever wish to offend. But like everyone else in the world, there are moments when I get frustrated and leave a silly comment. Hope you have a nice day, Matthew The Farty  Doctor   Talk  03:43, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

Page moves
No worries, mate. Thanks for moving all the links beforehand. I'm usually too lazy to do it myself - haha. --Revan\Talk 12:55, October 21, 2015 (UTC)

Edit summary
Please don't use the edit summaries to form a conversation or a lengthy speech. Edit summaries are for short explanations of one's edit, not a chat forum. Thanks. --DCLM ☎  11:44, October 23, 2015 (UTC)

Reverting
While I agree with you that this should not turn into an edit war, please contact an admin or solve it another way. --DCLM ☎  11:44, October 23, 2015 (UTC)

IV Magda vs. 1V Magda
I just re-listened to the story, and it's 1V Magda. Thanks for the heads up, I'll fix that link.  P&amp;P  talk   contribs  15:10, November 11, 2015 (UTC)

Bang-Bang-a-Boom!
Thanks for doing the hard part - changing the links. I was actually the one who put the original rename tag up, before I became an admin, and I had forgotten about it.  P&amp;P  talk   contribs  13:54, November 19, 2015 (UTC)

Empress is a title or not?
I'm going to rewrite that passage about the Doctor meeting Beethoven, and the royal family of Austria anyways: I don't remember a single shred of evidence for that statement, I just want to double check the text. Meanwhile, I'm interested why you removed the link Empress?

I think it's better to agree on such cases now before I make final edits. Here is my rational: I started making links to all the official titles, such as Count, Countess, Emperor, Empress, Doctor, etc. I also checked that the page Emperor does contain information about the female form of the title, giving two possibilities: a wife of an Emperor, which is the case in point, or a ruler in her own right, e.g. Katherine the Great of Russia.

I'm interested in learning why you think there shouldn't be a link. Amorkuz ☎  18:22, December 13, 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, that's what it was, thank you for the explanation. So the golden rule is at most one link to a page per section? I have a proposition then regarding The Silver Turk. I'm currently wikifying the play, but it will take me days if not weeks ((pseudo-)historicals are hard, doubly so if they are set near our time). I'm adding information piece by piece rather than in one big chunk. I'm thankful to all the people who help me do this in a correct by-the-policy way. However, with respect to over-wikification, it might make sense to wait till I'm finished and then to remove additional links, just as a matter of efficiency. In fact, I was planning to do it myself in the very end, and now I even know the golden rule. I really do not want to do it after every edit because that slows me down and may require moving one link upward more than once. My proposal to you: I will let you know when I'm finished and have removed links I thought to be duplicates. Then you can give the page a once-over to make sure I did not miss anything. Amorkuz ☎  09:53, December 14, 2015 (UTC)

Scripts for BF
That is a very useful piece of information. Thank you very much indeed. That's what they mean when they say "Subscribers get more." I was always wondering. Amorkuz ☎  13:37, December 14, 2015 (UTC)

Series disambiguation
You are right that the current situation is variable, and I think that has to do with how inconsistently things are marketed by Big Finish. Some things are series, some are volumes, some have individual titles, some don't. Why is it Doom Coalition 1, The Diary of River Song Series 1, The War Doctor Volume 1 with an individual title, and UNIT: Extinction without a number? For NABS, they're volumes, but only the second one has an individual title. The upcoming Gallifrey series has a banner title, but none of the preceding ones did, and the seventh "series" only consisted of one story. Short Trips switched from volumes to series. Iris Wildthyme series five has a banner title, the rest don't. It's difficult to create a "one-size-fits-all" approach.

To actually answer your question instead of ranting, series pages follow the normal dab rules. They should only be dabbed when there's a conflict, so Gallifrey (audio series) dabbed, but Jago and Litefoot undabbed. The current practice for audio is to create pages for "volumes" and anthologies with individual titles, but not "series". This seems a little arbitrary to me, because there's not much difference between numbered volumes and series, but again, it's difficult to accommodate all the different release styles. I hope that answers your question. 17:00, December 26, 2015 (UTC)

Benny before Hex
Cat's Cradle: Time's Crucible is not set after Lurkers at Sunlight's edge. The Ace and Hex stuff is all after the New Adventures. Lungbarrow tries to lead into the Movie, but has been deliberately violated either way by all of the Seven alone audios, like the Klein stuff. Big Finish has made a period where the Doctor and Ace are traveling together (and Ace loses an unknown amount of memory). In The New Adventures of Bernice Summerfield, Ace starts traveling with him again. The Prisoner's Dilemma references Happy Endings, but has the Doctor and Ace together. Ace loses her memory and is very unsure that the Doctor has been able to restore all of it. In Shadowmind (and later stories) Ace is successfully keeping track of her age, enough that she knows when her birthday is. In the Hex stories, she has no idea how old she is or how long she's been traveling. In Love and War, Ace has definitely not had any lovers other than Glitz and now, Jan. In A Death in the Family, she has a boyfriend on Earth for months. Ace has ongoing issues with the Doctor in the New Adventures about him never teaching her the first thing about TARDIS flight, but in Black and White she knows about the Fast Return Switch and in the post-Hex anthology You Are the Doctor and Other Stories the Doctor is teaching her to fly the TARDIS. Ace has matured a lot in her Big Finish stuff. In Timewyrm: Exodus she was almost gleeful about killing Nazis, but in Colditz is unhappy about one dying. Sophie Aldred said in the Theatre of War Behind the Scenes disc that she was deliberately portraying Ace as younger, because the story was set earlier than those they usually do.Fwhiffahder ☎  15:20, December 28, 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the early BF Ace stories were meant to be set early in the New Adventures at the time. The authors said as much. I also absolutely agree with the policy of treating all stories as equal. I can't speak for Signs and Wonders. It's the one discrepancy. However, as a general rule Big Finish has made it clear in their recent stories that they aren't trying to cram them in before Love and War anymore. It's kind of inevitable, really. Big Finish has an ongoing storyline with Ace, and while they certainly have some loyalty to the New Adventures, it wouldn't be easy to keep up with the continuity required to continue considering their stories pre-Love and War. If we look at the perspective on audios as they were written, as you seem to suggest, Lurkers at Sunlight's Edge was never written as a pre-Love and War story. It was set after A Death in the Family, and it after Project: Destiny, all the way back to The Fearmonger. If you extrapolate from the assumption that The Fearmonger is inarguably pre-Love and War, then you can say Lurkers at Sunlight's Edge is also pre-Love and War. It makes more sense, though, to see that Big Finish has essentially conceded that they can't place their Ace stories in any gap in the New Adventures. Until recently, there weren't a lot of choices other than "BF is pre-Love and War," "BF is pre-Set Piece," and "BF stuff doesn't fit very well, but that's Doctor Who for you." However, they made The Prisoner's Dilemma, inventing a new post-Happy Endings period of travel for Ace stories. The memory wipe in Timewyrm: Genesys was the New Adventures' way of explaining any continuity cock-ups they made. The memory wipe in The Prisoner's Dilemma is the same thing for Big Finish.Fwhiffahder ☎  16:13, December 28, 2015 (UTC)
 * You say there are "bigger problems" with Hex being after Benny, and with the Doctor remembering everything, but you haven't explained what they are. Can we at least not act like it's unambiguous that Lurker's at Sunlight's Edge came before and contradicts Cat's Cradle: Time's Crucible? Just from reading/listening to the two on their own it's obvious that that doesn't make sense. How about some kind of "may have visited Alaska earlier" statement? Also, if this wiki is supposed to be based that much on authorial intent at the time of writing, I should go edit the loom page and get rid of the "looms arnt real lol" circlejerk.Fwhiffahder ☎  16:37, December 28, 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it has to be a definite statement that Lurkers at Sunlight's Edge is after Cat's Cradle: Time's Crucible. I'm just saying the page must at the very least acknowledge that it's not clear-cut, and there's ambiguity as to where the placement is.