User talk:The Thirteenth Doctor

Categories
Have you checked around to make sure there's nothing else that can go in the archaeology category? But if there's nothing to go into the category, yes definitely change it so archaeology (the article) is placed within the two categories. I'll also merge the two pages shortly. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 11:49, October 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, any categories that have less than 3 articles within them I think don't really need to be categories, the articles can be categoried elsewhere, just be sure to check the 'what links here' before exorcising them of their content (sometimes that what links here might give some indication of other things that might be categorised into it). Also thanks for the SJA bracket correction. --Tangerineduel 12:58, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, there almost certainly are other things which can go into Category:Archaeology, given that major characters in the Whoniverse are archaeologists. There must be something in a Benny book or audio about an archaeological dig. I don't know the character that well, but I'd find it pretty hard to believe she hasn't been portrayed as actively practicing archaeology sometime in her 10 series of audios and thousands of pages of prose.   The Library arguably deserves to be classed under archaeology, since the team was led by River Song, an archaeologist.  The Nine Travellers should be put under archaeology, as well, since the site was quite obviously being studied by Amelia Rumford, an archaeologist. Pretty sure there must be something archaeological about the   pyramids of Egypt, since Scarman is quite obviously on an archaeological dig at the top of Pyramids of Mars.
 * Though the "Rule of Three" TD mentions above is certainly useful, I think you also have to be judicious about it. Having spent a lot of time organizing categories and nominating some for deletion, the thing I've found most useful is caution.  Don't arbitrarily delete a category before carefully considering whether it is likely that there is more information on that subject that has yet to be written on this site.  A corollary to that rule is that if it can contain even a single subcategory (itself containing at least three pages), then the category should be kept.  I think we could quite easily have a subcategory category:Archaeological sites under Category:Archaeology.  Just on the basis of televised DW alone, there's at least:
 * the site Scarman was at in ep 1 of Pyramids
 * the Tomb of the Cybermen from the serial of the same name
 * the Library
 * the Nine Travellers
 * Stonehenge (mostly by way of its inclusion in dialogue in The Stones of Blood, not really for The Pandorica Opens)
 * the site in Battlefield
 * That alone justifies the Archaeology category.  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  13:16, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the advice. I have made a fourum page so please edit that and show people waht you think. Also am I as you said a episode editing pro or con? Ghastly9090 14:26, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Vortex Manipulator
Want me to try and separate them then? - '' I. Am. Excalibur-117 '' -(talk • contribs) 16:08, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

images doctor
can we make an exception with these article, its really hard to get good images. (Ceryu 22:09, October 24, 2010 (UTC))

Infobox
Thanks for letting me know, I've reverted to a previous edit for now until I can make sure it works correctly. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 12:34, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

New pages
It's sort of assumed that when creating a page you've got something to write about, I'm reticent to create a policy just about that, but I've added a note to the Tardis:Community Portal saying to make sure you've got enough to justify an article. It's sometimes hard to define exactly how much is "enough" given the wide range of articles, but as I re-check through policies/help articles I'll see if I can add it elsewhere. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 13:58, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Santiago's dad
It's not a big deal, but obviously that was the point of RTD's coy line. It's being wilfully difficult to say "Ah, yes, but we did not have an extra ten words specifying why he was a member." If we're being literal and not allowed to understand the writerly decisions behind lines, then we have to believe outright that the Doctor can regenerate 507 times also (when this is a joke). Clearly it's meant to be saying "Look, Santiago's a normal boy whose dad is gay but is still an active father in many respects." I thought (admittedly, from a real-world perspective), that this was an interesting portrayal. It's probably also an interesting thing about Santiago in terms of his real-world biography, anyway.Zythe 15:17, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Does the Doctor's flippant delivery to the question not actually imply, textually, that it is intended to be humorous? I can't see why a person can't exercise a little critical judgement.Zythe 23:00, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Apart from the comic delivery, we both know that Russell T Davies explained that it was definitely meant as a joke.Zythe 15:15, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Jo Jones
Jo did NOT die in a house fire in 2028! That's just nonsense in those Virgin novels that those idiots write, how could you allow such a horrible thing to be written about someone as nice as Jo without even saying it might to be true? She didn't die, she died peacefully in her sleep god damn it. No offence.

Theres no need to take offence, I didn't swear at you or anything like that, and I'm sorry if you feel that way and I'm pretty sure you did remove my edit, as I saw it. The people who wrote the books were not idiots, but I find them bad writers because they like interfering, apart from killing off half the people who have ever been in the show, the continous sexual agenda and the numerous stuff to contradict the Time War, they haven't really contributed anything to the Whoniverse.

It seems to me though that you enjoy suffering and people dying, and I wouldn't call that speculation...and I've seen many of your edits on Doctor Who Wiki, do you even have a life outside of this? Because all you seem to be doing is coming on here and making articles as dull as possible. I can name many times when I've felt offended by you for dehumanizing yourself and others. I could go on.

And before you take offence yet again, that paragraph above wasn't offensive either, and to be honest in a world where people can execute woman for commiting adultery or removing their burkhas, I think I can say you're making this site dull. Its like you enjoy the grim idea of Jo dying, if the whole world just ended, and everyone you ever knew was dead...would you still treat it as a "stone cold fact" and not think anything else of it? Because with your language and attitude you're giving me that impression.

~ThePandoricaOpens666 17:31 27th October 2010

Hmmmm....I guess.

~ThePandoricaOpens666 19:36 27th October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was a bit rude to you, I have a problem at the moment with people in authority and get frustrated very easily.

~ThePandoricaOpens666 22:14 27th October, 2010 (UTC)

hey no 13 i just edited your user, so what r u gonna do about it?

how do you have the power to block someone?

Apologies
Im very sorry about earlier, I don't know what came over me! Just ask Skittles the hog for instance!

But all the same the idea of people editing on this wonderful Doctor Who fact machine, with programes like DR wHO it really makes this site amazing!

And I'm so so sorry, but I think I've said enough, I'm hoping you reply with a good positive, comment after this sadly distruptive time with me and you.

I just hope you'll forgive me, so much, really please just forgive I will not do it again!

sorry!

hello? im sorry by the way!

2x30
Most Doctor Who stories are shown in the x x-minute format. For example: The Talons of Weng-Chiang and Delta and the Bannermen. Surely this would be the format to use to keep up the pattern?--Skittles the hog 19:52, October 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Either way there are alot of changes to be made. I think 2x30 minutes format is best though so I will make a start. Thanks--Skittles the hog 21:11, October 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * On second thoughs, I do not think it looks very nice in that format and I think the hyphon prevents people getting mixed up. Perhaps submit this to the forums?--Skittles the hog 21:20, October 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well it clearly links the number and the word minute.--Skittles the hog 14:05, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Trivia
when was the cheetah people and catkind shown to have retractable claws? Kingdomcode 21:57, October 30, 2010 (UTC)Kingdomcode

re: Retractable claws
when was their claws shown in new earth? who's claws was shown? who was he/she going to scratch? and was he/she going to kill that person? Kingdomcode 00:09, October 31, 2010 (UTC)Kingdomcode

Followed pages
Just a favour, could you stop following 'Cat:Tangerineduel the rap...'. As despite the category being deleted it is the first thing that appears beside your talk page. Alternatively (or as well as) you can make your followed list private (go to "Preferences," and then "Followed pages" and check "Make my followed pages list private") Thanks. --Tangerineduel 11:10, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Youre not a admin
Dear 13th doctor

Why do boss people about even though your not a admin thats for admins so most of the users like me and other people

so i just stop bovering people

thanks

ps how do you loke at the history its taking me a long time to fiqure it out and if it dosent have history im going to ask wikia to change it back

Read this!!!
YOU NO WHAT, YOU SEEN THE LOST IN TIME TRAILER, WELL YOU SEE RANI, CLYDE AND SARAH JANE!!!

PremierChannel 1999 13:36, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Video Game
Just thinking a video game (& Adventure Games) template a'la Series 5 template Joshoedit 19:42, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Video Game
Just thinking a video game (& Adventure Games) template a'la Series 5 template Joshoedit 19:42, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Help
Hi The Thirteenth Doctor. I have just become an admin on The Sarah Jane Adventures Wiki. I think Mini-mitch is a regular user on it as well but it is in really bad shape. There are loads of VITAL pages that need creating and that's where you come in. You are one of the top editors on this wiki and look at it now; It's number 10 on the "Wiki Charts". Please would you try to help Sarah Jane Adventures Wiki by creating some of these pages and I could help by asking the guy in charge (Mini-mitch I think) to make you and admin. This is not bribary. Please could you help or at least have a look. I have left a similar message with Tangerineduel Thanks so much. Ghastly9090 16:17, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

Hi, did you see the above message? Please reply. Ghastly9090 17:48, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

k9
we need a solution k9 MK.3 has go the delete tag again and there is pretty good arguments to delete it. we need a solution or we could have a editing war for 2 YEARS. Joshoedit 19:15, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

 Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  21:15, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

Tags
What happened to the tags on the series 6 page? Joshoedit 00:13, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion in Forums
Could I ask you to leave your thoughts on the discussion on speculation in forum here?. Thanks. Mini-mitch 21:25, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Human --> human
Did you want to add any more to the debate at Forum:"Human" shouldn't be capitalised? 17:09:13 Sun 27 Feb 2011 20:02:42 Fri 11 Mar 2011

Mini-mitch\talk 17:25, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

--Tangerineduel / talk 14:38, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

Spoilers in The Howling
I see that you recently chastised Ghastly9090 for including spoilers in The Howling. However, you seem to hold a mistaken view of that forum. The Howling is not a spoiler-free zone, as the text at forum:The Howling makes very clear. I'm sorry that your experience of series 6 might've been spoiled, but it's hardly Ghastly9090's fault that he used The Howling appropriately. 17:34:20 Sat 16 Apr 2011
 * You've answered your own question when you noted that "nowhere [in the spoiler policy] does it say spoilers can be discussed on the Howling or on any forum". Precisely.  What policy doesn't restrict, it implicitly allows.  And, again, there's a big ol' warning at Forum:The Howling that says, "there be spoilers here".


 * It comes down to a practical issue of policing. In order to determine whether something is or isn't a spoiler, an admin would have to look at it.  If the admin doesn't want to be spoiled, then he or she is forced into the uncomfortable position of having to spoil his enjoyment of the program in order to uphold his duties as an admin of enforcing policy. Thus, it's simply best to allow spoilers in The Howling and to put up a warning that there are spoilers present there.


 * In effect, there's no way to operationalize a spoiler ban in the Howling, so there is no ban.  19:07:21 Sat 16 Apr 2011
 * You're selectively quoting from the paragraph, in my view. The thing reads in full:
 * Spoiler information relating to not-yet-released stories must be kept to series or, in some cases, story articles. Please do not create articles about narrative elements rumoured to exist within stories that haven't been released. It is impossible to verify such things before the story is released.
 * As the second and third sentences go on to say, it's talking about keeping spoiler information on story/series pages versus putting them on in-universe (i.e. narrative element) articles. It doesn't at all talk about your user page, a file description page, a template, or the forum.  If it had meant to ban that, it would have talked about those namespaces.  Instead, the paragraph as a whole is talking about the main namespace.


 * But I think you're missing the point. It's impossible to police this without requiring that admin spoil their own enjoyment of the show.  Even if every admin were willing to submit to a "tough, you must be spoiled to be an admin here" kinda policy, the sheer workload of keeping up with the Howling would be ridiculous.  Particularly when the show is actively in season.  The whole point of The Howling, from my perspective, is that it's essentially a place where users can do what they want (so long as they don't violate copyright or deliberately defame people).  Again, there is a warning up on the Howling's page saying that spoilers are allowed.  I really can't understand why you're ignoring that, or trying to find some loophole in the spoiler policy.  It's just not a thing admin are obligated, by policy, to actively worry about.


 * If you'd like clearer language on the spoiler policy, fine, I"m willing to change it to specifically say "Spoilers are allowed in the Howling." But that wouldn't represent a change to policy.  It would just add emphasis.  20:39:23 Sat 16 Apr 2011