User talk:Bold Clone

'''Please leave all new messages at the bottom of the page. Also, please make a new heading for each separate discussion, and sign all message as well. Comments that are unsigned, rude, a personal attack, and/or vandalism will be either ignored or deleted. You have been warned, and thank you for reading this.'''

2010 Archive Jan. '11 Archive Feb. '11 Archive

20:42:30 Fri 11 Mar 2011

Rumour
You removed a valid rumour, but if it's reworded and added liked you told me then we'll leave it. You may use the wording I use at the top of my page, it does help. It really annoying when people post at a random point on you talk page with no heading. Mini-mitch\talk 16:27, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

15:58:29 Tue 29 Mar 2011 Ά

Ref desk
I stuck an Admin-only protection on it, should do the trick. --Revan\Talk 20:58, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

Ref desk
Just noticed you cleared up the reference desk's recent vandalism. I blocked one user (95.133.47.228) for vandalising it. Do you think this enough? ThanksSkittles the hog-- Talk 21:00, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. Didn't see the above post :)Skittles the hog-- Talk 21:00, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

Protection length on articles
I just saw you post on Forum:When can we create "The Impossible Astronaut" page?, and I just thought I say I agree with you about the protection of main page time. You stated that it should only be a month. I thought I'd just say to you that I may bring this up for discussion in the forums at a later date, and I hope you will be involved in it. The current protection length is one year, which is can be seen as too long. I hope you will take a active role forum. Thanks. Mini-mitch\talk 14:49, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion
Instead of telling people to go to the talk page, why don;t you start by going. Why not just go "Talk page?" start a discussion, that way, you have made the effort to resolve something, instead of just making a situation worse. I had to start to discussion, one because you don't understand the meaning of a rumour. Mini-mitch\talk 19:17, April 18, 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna say I have to agree with MiniMitch on this one, the person who wants a change to take place on the article should be starting a talk page discussion, not the person who wants to keep it the same. --Revan\Talk 19:25, April 18, 2011 (UTC)

Spoiler policy
It always been the UK. An enw episode can air in different countries weeks after the first airing ever (UK airing), it it is very difficult to control spoilers from the UK airing to the last airing. The main page says this wiki contains spoilers, so people are aware. Also, the episode page gets filled in after the episode has aired,which also includes spoilers.

It don't think it is written into the spoiler policy, but it's always been an unwritten rule that it's after the UK air date (or wherever it airs first). Hope this answers your question, and if it does not, feel free to raise it on the forums or ask another admin. Thanks Mini-mitch\talk 19:50, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

Unknown
Not a problem at all. The field simply disappears if left empty. Magic!Skittles the hog-- Talk 16:39, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Blocking Guidelines
I reverted it, as it's not a good idea to give an exact length of time a User would be blocked for, especially when it could be a minor or serious thing, which should have different block lengths. Would a User who sent someone a death treat be blocked for the same length of time as someone who swears at another User? It's something that should be in the policy, as Users could say "I may have sent a User a death treat, but I should only be blocked for 24 hours." When it should be longer. It is something that could be discussed on the forums through. Mini-mitch\talk 19:05, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Mini-mitch\talk 17:31, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

River in the Library
I'm just wondering why you keep changing my edits to the library section. Firstly, the diary and screwdriver have been previously mentioned, and so no longer need a whole paragraph. Also, her transfer to CAL is rather a big event in her 'life', and so why do you feel it doesn't need its own section? Geek Mythology 00:34, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

Mini-mitch\talk 14:51, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

Revertions
Thanks for reverting those edits, I've just come back online and seen it all. He's been blocked now, thanks again. --Revan\Talk 18:46, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

TARDIS page
Alot of the edits you made were already reviewed by Skittles the hog and he didn't seem to have any problem with them. They have been on the page awhile.
 * "Flight: Irrelevant to flight." - The word flight is a referance to how the TARDIS travels. The article begins by stating "TARDISes most often moved through time and space by "disappearing there and reappearing here"" This was on the page prior to posting the pic. The pic itself shows the TARDIS disappearing.
 * "Dimensionally transcendental: Not enought room for both pictures.)" - The pic was there awhile. It was previsly reviewed by Skittles the hog who didn't seem to have a problem with it.
 * "Chameleon circuit: Completely irrelevant to the shapeshifting abilities of the chameleon circuit." - The Chameleon Circuit is designed to conceal the TARDIS in order to allow it to blend into it's surroundings like a chameleon. Shapeshifting is one way it does that, but not the only way. Invisibility is the other way. So it does fit under that catagory. MochaShakaKhan 21:27, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Technically I you haven't given me a reason not to undo your undo, but for arguements sake, personally, would prefer another pic of a newer version of the TARDIS' console, but I disagree in regards to the idea that the console is irrelevant to flight. It belongs on the TARDIS page and in the Flight section. The reason I say this is because it has been demonstrated "that all you need is a console w/ time rotor and three walls to fly through the vortex". We see this in the episode The Doctor's Wife, The Doctor's Wife is the episode where Idris and The Doctor use left over parts from cannibalized TARDISes abandoned in the Bubble universe's Junkyard to build the Junk TARDIS. With the junk TARDIS they fly to the Police Box TARDIS which had been hijacked by House. According to the junk TARDIS wikia page "'The TARDIS consisted solely of a console (with time rotor) and three walls. It lacked a proper shell, which the Doctor stated would be very dangerous to travel without." So basically I think this demonstrates that the console is key to time-space flight and that it does belong in the flight section.

My rational for the other two arguements remain the same as before. I have nothing really to add. The pic of the inside of the TARDIS does fit. In regards to invisibility, I think it belongs in the Chameleon Circuit section, but if you want, as a comprimise perhaps we can add the exert I wrote to another section, instead of adding it to the Chameleon Circuit section. Invisibility is a feature of the TARDIS so it does belong somewhere on the page. MochaShakaKhan 03:51, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Silence Edit
Why did you remove my edit?

MM/ Want to talk? 20:34, August 9, 2011 (UTC)

17:20:08 Mon 22 Aug 2011

Historically famous companions
Hey, MM is saying at talk:companion that you removed the whole section on historically famous companions. Could you please head over to the talk page and explain your motivations for that move? I'm not understanding your objections. Thanks! 23:40:25 Thu 25 Aug 2011

Continued removal of pics at the Doctor's TARDIS
So I see that you have again removed a picture I put up at the Doctor's TARDIS. Just as with other pictures I've put onto that article, I was trying to demonstrate features of the exterior of the TARDIS that aren't terribly common knowledge to the BBC Wales-era fan. In your latest removal, you've taken down a shot of the windows being propped open, a common happenstance during season 2, but not really seen elsewhere. Certainly, it's not something which has even been suggested by BBC Wales Doctor Who.

So why are you averse to this' image? Do you believe that the section should only have one picture? Is it purely a layout preference? Cause you haven't removed the associated fact, I don't believe. Why is it that the only pic you've allowed to stand is the bit from TVC? I mean, I'm busy around here so I don't have time to monitor the page on even a monthly basis, so it doesn't really matter to me. But I occasionally add bits to it when I come across some detail about the TADIS that the article doesn't include. It just seems weird that you keep batting away my images on the page. And to be honest, it feels like I'm wasting my time capturing these image.

If I knew the criteria you were using to justify your removals — which, by the way, rarely if ever have much of a revision summary — perhaps we could work out some sort of compromise so that I wouldn't be wasting my time putting up an image you're just going to summarily remove. 02:33:38 Thu 01 Sep 2011

River Song
Just to let you know that I keep scrubbing the River Song page. It's long and is only going to get longer, so I am working hard to make sure that the long, rambling,flabby, fuzzy, almost-the-right-word c**p that infests a lot of the writing here does not show up there. Of course, this means that occasionally, in my efforts, I will remove a word that I should not have. Vigilance! Boblipton 23:24, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

The lake and River Song
I'm not going to chnage it until we have a clear vote. What would I gain from removing those lines in the middle of a vote, people need to know what's currently written. That's why I'll give it a few days, and if the vote says "yes" to removing it, we'll remove it, if it's "no", we won't.

Until then, it stays. Like I said: people need to knows what's there and what's being removed. MM/ Want to talk? 21:12, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Artefacts?
I recently saw you removed my edit to the Alien "Artefacts" page when i fixed the incorrect spelling of Artifact. You see, Artefact refers to some french heavy metal band ad not an object like and Artifact which does refer to an object. So whhy change it to something it obviously isnt. For me reading the article as it was with Artefact and knowing its spelled Artifact and what Artefact means annoys me so i went to fix it, yet you reverted my edit for no reason and hence,degraded the page.TheFourteenthDoctor 03:47, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

Well where should it go then?
It's a legitimate fact - with a link to back it up. If it doesn't go in the story notes, then where does it go??? -- MisterRandom2 talk to me 23:57, December 8, 2011 (UTC) 04:22: Tue 20 Dec 2011 18:24: Thu 22 Dec 2011

Hey!
Hey, haven't seen you around for a while! Dr. Anonymous1 ☎  17:42, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been busy over the summer, and now that college has started up again, I still don't have much time to devote to this. But now that Doctor Who has come back (at least for the next month or so), I'll be here at least marginally. -- Bold  Clone  17:44, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Death
Regeneration is death. It's a way of cheating death, but it is death. The body dies and then new cells grow in it's place. but death happen first. When the Fifth Doctor dies and then becomes the Sixth, he dies. It is the same thing. Sorry to take such a depressing take on all of it, but regeneration is death. And "Death" is a much better header than "Regeneration", particuarly as every Doctor regenerated twice in his life. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 01:44, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * Besides that point, the Doctor only changes when he dies. Regeneration is a way to avoid death, but only by means of rejuvenation. When the Seventh Doctor was killed in that hopsital he died. Then he regenerated. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 03:15, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * No, he became a stiff. He died. The word "death" has been used multiple time in regeneration stories; including The Caves of Androzani. Regeneration is the process of being reborn after death. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 04:04, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * As the Tenth Doctor said in The End of Time, "Even if I change, it feels like dying. Everything I am dies. Some new man goes sauntering away...and I'm dead." Even if he just changes and goes on, it's still death in a way. Everything I am dies. The Tenth Doctor, by definition, is now dead. Now we have the Eleventh. But the Tenth is still dead. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 04:33, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * The proplem here is that every Doctor has two regenerations. Putting a section called "Regeneration" on the Tenth Doctor's page, for example, could refer to either Parting of The Ways or The End of Time. And the death sections on the the Third Doctor's page are a must-keep. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 05:07, February 18, 2013 (UTC)

No, no it wouldn't. Sorry to be so nnegative, but "Death" is frankly more interesting and accurate than "Regeneration", and if a fan truly doesn't understand that regeneration is coming back after death than that's not our proplem. We shouldn't structure pages off of the ideals of new fans; if we did we'd be wiping all pre-2005 info off the map. "Death" is a better and less confusing header than "Regeneration". OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 05:44, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a forum discussion is best for this one; over wheather the Doctor dies and is ressurected or if he simply "changes". Czech would prop def pull out some sources from books and we could come to a consensus. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 22:09, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * Might as well move it to the forum. Make the question over whether regeneration is "changing-pre-death" or "rejuvination-post-death". I feel like Czech can get us some quick sources. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 19:35, February 19, 2013 (UTC)