User talk:Epsilon the Eternal

Archiving talk page
Hey, I see you tried to archive your talk page, but indeed it did not work properly. The first time I tried doing it, it also didn't work, and so I'll paraphrase the advice SOTO gave me: just copy all the content from your talk page and paste it into User_talk:Epsilon the Eternal/Archive_NUMBER (also adding a on both pages). That way, it's guaranteed to work. Hope this helps ;p OncomingStorm12th ☎  23:30, October 16, 2020 (UTC)

Link
Hi, just wanted to let you know that the link for the website on Salt Publishing didn't lead to their website, but instead, an error page. I took it out for now, since I don't know how to make it work. (I copy/pasted from the site link on Wikipedia, but it took me to the same place) Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎  01:59, October 17, 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, it fixed it! Thank you! Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎  02:09, October 17, 2020 (UTC)

Inuse with no content
Just a heads up because you might have forgotten, Christmas Hotel has been inuse for ~5 days and has no content on it. Najawin ☎  19:28, October 28, 2020 (UTC)

Sanbox Nine [sic]
Steven Moffat (Afterword) was definitely stated to be involved with the in universe series, he just wasn't stated to be involved in the TV section of it. No real difference from Paul Magrs (Bafflement and Devotion). He was involved in writing a book about the Doctor as a fictional character. Najawin ☎  20:39, November 11, 2020 (UTC)

Obscured Props
That seems like we can just bring it up in Thread:272817 whenever we get back to that thread. Like, the only instance otherwise is at Tudor, but the entire point of the thread in question was about these sorts of meta jokes. Najawin ☎  03:38, November 12, 2020 (UTC)

Re: Thinly-veiled Doctors
Well-noted, thank you! Could you tell me what story Paul Bowman comes from? I fear I've forgotten. – N8  ( ☎ / 👁️ ) 20:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, of course! How silly of me to have forgotten, especially since I'm the one who wrote that Behind the Scenes section on Claudia (Father Time). Thank you for the recap! – N8  ( ☎ / 👁️ ) 21:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Moving pages
Hey. Just so you know, only admins are supposed to move pages, so you should've put a Speedy Rename on the Jones webcast page rather than moving it yourself. -- Saxon (✉️) 12:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Iris Wildthyme Timeline
Hi Epsilon,

I think that it is your burden to start a discussion if you think that "there's likely an reason" that something is the way it is.

The change I made was to the order of a certain collection of stories - this same incorrect order had also appeared on the anthology page and therefore it is most likely, in my opinion, that the incorrect material was simply transferred from the anthology page rather than the order having any specific meaning of its own.

From what I have been able to work out the incorrect order matches the copyright list at the start of Lady Stardust. I think that someone incorrectly identified this as an accurate order of the stories in the anthology. RadMatter ☎  22:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Signature stuff
Hey, I was admiring your signature on Talk:Iris Wildthyme and, since I'm nosy, wanted to ask: did you copy it from a template somewhere? I noticed it links to your contributions via doctorwho:Special:COntributions/ rather than calling Special:Contributions/ directly, which I find interesting. I've been thinking about creating a signature template for myself in my userpage space, as mentioned at T:SIG LOOK, since I don't have much experience with template design and it seems like a fun exercise! – n8 (☎) 07:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit on LauraBatham's talk page
Hey! No offence, but I reverted your edit to User talk:LauraBatham's talk page because it could potentially be construed to be doxxing, of the same good-faith-sleuthing-going-a-bit-too-far variety you might recall from the 10,000 Dawns drama. I think you may well have been correct on the facts, but unless the person under discussion more explicitly signals their identity, you should not make such conclusions and put them on the Wiki. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  18:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Epsilon, I fear you do not understand. This is not a factual question. Whether you are right in your deduction is immaterial. Even if it is true (especially if it is true), you must not equate the user and the public person on this Wiki unless the public person gives their consent to the equation being made. Accordingly I have also reverted your edit on my talk page. Please stop using these two names next to each other on the Wiki, at least until the situation changes off-Wiki. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  19:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Hello, there. I just wanted to stop by and wish you the merriest of Christmases, and a Happy New Year. Hopefully you'll make Admin next year. I know I'd vote for you! BananaClownMan ☎  14:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Christmassy Tales
Hey Epsilon,

Have you read all of the stories in Christmassy Tales? I've heard mention that the Hoover from The Christmas Hoover is intended to be Servo-furnishing and I wondered if you would be able to clarify whether this was the case. Also, I wonder if the appearance of "Fenella Frimbly" gives more credibility to Baker's End as a whole being validated. RadMatter ☎  13:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Navboxes
Hey! User:66 Seconds informs me on my talk page that you have allegedly been undoing other people's works in the process of adding more conjectural characters to the existing navboxes. I have yet to take a closer look at the issue itself, but I'd appreciate you (and others) holding off from editing these things until you've talked things out elsewhere than in edit summaries, lest this devolve into edit war. Please let's have you two summarise the facts of the case on some suitable talk page (that of the Scooby Doo navbox, say), and I'll try to act as a moderator to bring this to a consensual resolution.

Also, while I have in the past been guilty of a similar thing, 66 Seconds is right in the message I linked you to chastise you for that all-caps editing summary; there's no need to, as it were, "raise one's voice". Scrooge MacDuck ☎  03:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Ah, I've just seen your post on 66's talk page. Well, I now better understand the facts of the case, but I must admit 66 is right to raise the constitutional issue, even though I am agnostic on which type of navbox would be better in theory. There is not enough explicit, clear-cut precedent here for you to be able to make choices, as an individual editor, about "overwriting other users' contributions slightly for the best of the Wiki", or implementing a change of style across dozens of pages. Such decisions require consensus. As I said, please talk this out on a talk page. (Ideally we'd want a forum thread, but, of course…) Scrooge MacDuck ☎  03:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Navboxes on fiction pages
Hi Epsilon. As I requested earlier in the notes from my edit on the Scooby Doo template, please could you raise a discussion prior to changing all navboxes of this type. They have been set up by multiple users, including myself, User:LegoK9 and User:MrThermomanPreacher over a series of months. I also don't appreciate being spoken down to. There is no need to use block capitals in discussions. The conjectural notices at the bottom of each the navboxes read "Some categorisation may be based upon conjecture" - I know because I edited these notices into the template. Adding real world information, such as the full name "Scooby Scoobert Doo" is not required for categorisation of disambiguation purposes, as we already have the name Scooby Doo from an in-universe source. This is therefore a case of real world information being added into the navbox. Please desist from altering the navboxes until a proper discussion has been raised and a conclsuion reached, or until a decision has been made by a moderator. 66 Seconds ☎  03:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi. Just seen your message on my talk page and accept your apology. I understand the pros and cons of each type of navbox, and have indeed made both types myself, but personally find the short navboxes useful for information related to authors and artists, where users can easily see the works of such people at the top of the page and quickly navigate between them. I didn't originally come up with the format, looking at the early templates I believe that was User:LegoK9. Considering these are the work of multiple users, I would just appreciate that this be talked out first rather than be changed by one user. Also please understand that, by our own understanding, we are all doing what is best for the Wiki. Again, thanks for your apology and hopefully this can be resolved in due course in the best interests of the Wiki and its users. Thanks for your prompt response and understanding. 66 Seconds ☎  03:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Umpty Ums
"Thirteenth Doctor (The Terror of the Umpty Ums)" seems like it would be fine with a conjecture tag, yeah. I guess my concern wasn't NO RW, I just wasn't sure how to phrase it short enough to be in an edit summary. The story explicitly says that it's the Doctor speaking, not the actress playing her (though, of course, it's really the child's mental illness, which is a completely different level to the whole thing). And while it does acknowledge the metafictional conceit of the issue, I'm just not convinced that there's any acknowledgement of the actress at all, as opposed to the character (even if the story understands the latter to be fictional). Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think we're justified in making that leap, those are two different things in my mind. Najawin ☎  05:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, one of my suggestions on the page is that we can rename it and remove all Umpty Um content (No issue with the Zygon Isolation stuff, that clearly does seem to be an actress based on what we know of Doctor Who (N-Space) - though, I guess we could quibble over the show being CGI or actually filming the Doctor's adventures or something, but I think that's a far larger discussion to have over how we treat the show, and not one that this issue in particular runs afoul of, and, also, to be frank, not really needed unless someone really overreaches). The story doesn't technically establish that the show in question isn't animated, or that you don't have a man playing a female character (rare, but it happens, animation tends to go for the opposite), or that it's not animated + old school silent picture and he's not imagining what the voice sounds like. There's literally no mention of an actress, just that the character is both fictional and female. Now, she uses the term "fam", and we can pretty clearly determine that it's meant to be Whittaker as 13 as metafiction if we just think about it for all of two seconds, but the text itself doesn't get us there. We're inferring the existence of a person who probably exists but isn't actually stated to exist. Najawin ☎  06:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)