User talk:Scrooge MacDuck

When you have time.
Obviously the preferred state of affairs is an inclusion debate, but could you make a preliminary ruling on Doctor Who Comes to MINECRAFT! (webcast) being valid or invalid? There seems to be some disagreement whether we should prima facie regard this as a trailer or not. Najawin ☎  20:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Sandbox
So the charity stuff was going to more be directed at validity, since, as you stated, we do cover some BBC charity work. But to my knowledge Adventures in Lockdown has some of the first valid charity works, if not the first. As for Time, fair play if there's upcoming stuff there, but my concern was more that there are other personifications of time that occasionally use the name Time that aren't merged with that page. Hence by that standard we should either be splitting the page or merging it with, say, Father of Time. Obviously that's subject to change if new details manifest, and given that we're one month shy of two years without forums, I'm sure that it'll be resolved before we get the forums back. Najawin ☎  16:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, when you have the time, I'd appreciate input at Talk:You Are The Absurd Hero (short story), since I assume you've read it. Najawin ☎  03:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, Socrates, you. I'm not sure it does, it says "the likes of AUDIO: Flip-Flop", and specifically references the "choose your own adventure" style. That's not the only nonlinear style of storytelling though. And this is why I think a thread is needed, because the limits of this were never really hashed out, this happened when the forums were down. Najawin ☎  18:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Another sandbox thing, when you have the time and inclination, we all sort of read T:BOUND as saying "don't make large changes to multiple pages/the wiki as a whole without talking about it - tacit approval/active editing from editors/admins itself constitutes some degree of policy" (see, for instance, User talk:Shambala108 and Talk:Hugh Grant). I've listed this as something that I might want to start a thread on, but, honestly, I'm not sure a thread is needed, it might be something that could just be written into T:BOUND without any discussion, since it does seem to be how everyone seems to interpret that rule afaik. Obviously you'd know best, but I figured I'd bring the issue up. Cheers. Najawin ☎  08:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The Spiral Politic Database
So, fun topic here, The Spiral Politic Database has some subsections here that are redlinked. I'm more than willing to write up treatments of them, but I have a question or two. Crimes Against History and A Tour of the Capital have details on publishing dates and authors. I, uh, can't find that for the redlinked stories. (Well, I don't even think the stories in question are particularly narrative, but I digress.) (Also, I guess the page for TSPD would imply that they were all uploaded on 14 September 2002, but this doesn't help with the authors, and it's also not sourced. The Wayback machine isn't fine-grained enough to prove this.) I asked Nate if he knew, and if someone can scrounge up an answer that's great, but, in all honesty, given the nature of this, (a web article from 20 years ago that probably a few hundred people max even read at the time) I'm skeptical. Given that, should I make the pages sans publication dates/author fields? That's, uh, interesting precedent if it's the first time we've done that. Najawin ☎  06:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

BBV scripts
Honestly, I'm thinking about breaking down and making an AO3 or something. But I don't plan on doing the BBV stuff until after User:Najawin/Sandbox 2 is dealt with, so don't worry about it for now. Najawin ☎  22:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Subpages proposal
Hi Scrooge, I've recently put the finishing coat of polish on User:NateBumber/Sandbox/1, T:SUBPAGE for short. It's, uhh, it's not short, but it's thorough, and I've also spelled out why I think it could be accomplished without waiting for the forums. If you get the chance to look it over and let me know what you think, I'd really appreciate it! – n8 (☎) 17:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Some small issues when you're free
Hey. User:Shambala108's been less active recently, so I figured I'd reach out to you about an issue I left on her talk page. Could you read through Talk:Origins (comic story) when you have the chance and comment as to the precedent? There's some disagreement between a newer user with Epsilon and myself. Similarly, if you could talk to User:Sum41Champ at some point about their edits that would be lovely. I honestly don't know how to handle this whole situation, I don't think someone actively trying to engage should be blocked, but they constantly do things that Shambala has told them not to do (and that Nate and I have advised them are a bad idea), leading me to basically just read all of their edits to make sure they're not breaking anything. Najawin ☎  06:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Crikeytown
You've read The Crikeytown Cancellations, right? Would you say that the minor instances in panels 60 and 61 constitute additions to Obverse Books? This is a really weird story to deal with as far as wiki policy is concerned. Najawin ☎  06:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's just the whole varying levels of fiction thing is something the wiki has never had super duper clear policies on. Thanks, I'll make a note. Najawin ☎  08:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So I'm unaware of the An Ordinary Man situation, and it seems that this is in the archived forums. Can't comment on that. As for Legacies... Well... That's a messy issue. Regardless, you're probably right that
 * They say that UK copyright law does not consider references in fiction to someone else's IP to be a breach of copyright.
 * does establish the precedent, though it seems from some quick googling that UK copyright law seems to think this because UK copyright law for fictional characters is largely unwritten. So it may be that this will change in the future. But looks like you're right for now. Najawin ☎  07:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So, minor detail. For Paddy Whack and Bossy Boots, I'd prefer to give them the Dunfunnin individuals category, rather than the Crikeytown individuals one. Not a huge deal, can change if need be. The issue is that to do so, rule of 3 says I need three things to make a category, and I'd rather not make a page for Gunga Din 2000. Just a bad look. So would you suggest I ignore the rule of 3 or just stick them in the Crikeytown individuals category? Najawin ☎  03:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Someone went ahead and made the page, blatantly plagiarizing my work. Moot point now I guess. Just an area I'm a little uncomfortable with. Najawin ☎  18:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussions AbuseFilter
Hey! A new feature is available on Discussions - Discussions AbuseFilter (DAF). This is designed to be a tool to help moderation on Discussions, if certain behaviours are being disruptive and making manual moderation difficult:


 * DAF page (not enabled yet but I can do)
 * Announcement blog
 * Help page

Not compulsory for anyone to use it etc, just letting you know it's here. As a note about forums, I have asked Czech about it and I know he is aware it's still needed. If I can help with anything though, please give me a shout on here or Discord! --Spongebob456 talk 20:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Question about User Sandboxes/Subpages
So I just had a thought. And I figured I would ask an admin. I did a careful reading of T:NO FANFIC, T:NOT HOST, T:USER BAD, T:USER FANFIC, and even Forum:Charity anthology short stories. There's no explicit forbiddance of a user creating a sandbox to talk about a charity story, or a story that's supposed to be set in the DWU but rights issues fell through. The only thing that could be read that way is
 * but which have nothing to do with the DWU

In T:USER BAD, but these things do have to do with the DWU in a broad sense, and the narrow sense given in the linked article also means we shouldn't talk about invalid sources in sandboxes. Which is obviously not policy. Now this is me just spitballing here, hence why I'm asking an admin if it's kosher, or if it's something that we should probably have a thread about, or something that's just going to be fundamentally nixed because "we don't cover those" - even though this is a separate namespace. Najawin ☎  01:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I was actually thinking Force Majeure at some point. Or perhaps The Other Side of the World. (I was also thinking that it would be a potential solution in some far off future if we ever revisit the problem of Charity publication. Splitting wikis tends to shrink editor base, so it seemed like a potential "compromise".) Najawin ☎  07:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Vandal
Hi there’s a vandal 180.194.22.76 who keeps vandalising the Many Lives of Doctor Who page as well as others Valeyard12.5 ☎  22:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Vandal
Hi there is a user whose vandalising Dinosaurs on a Spaceship. He appears to be a repeat offender and sock puppet Valeyard12.5 ☎  15:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey Scrooge,

I saw you added some of The Train in Vain and the Junkmail Messiah (comic story) images last year, do you happen to know how to get a copy? I can't find it anywhere. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  22:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You're awesome thank you! Don't suppose you know how to find a copy of the Miranda comic too? DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  22:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, thank you so much! Has that only just been made available? I've searched for it on those sites before not long ago. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  22:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Could you please add Chinese interlanguage link to Main Page
Hello,

We have established Chinese Doctor Who Wiki. Could you please add Chinese interlanguage link to Main Page? Thank you for any help you can offer!

-LittlePaw365 ☎  15:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply! I looked into your Main Page's source code, and I think  would be okay. The full link should be   if necessary. LittlePaw365  ☎  16:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It works now! Again, thank you for all your help! LittlePaw365 ☎  16:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Tellymustard
Could you please have a word with User:Tellymustard. They've recently been moving stories on the timeline pages based solely on release order and episodes productions, which have been causing more harm than good. Their recent edit of moving Midnight to before Silence of the Library on the Tenth Doctor theory, and moving stories that directly follow Forest of the Dead to before it due to their relation to Midnight filled me with such a rage I nearly went to their talk page to tell them to stop, but I managed to temper myself after I logged on. Instead, I thought I'd come to an admin instead to voice my frustrations, since a word from them might have more impact than a rant from me, since I'll probably get blocked for my feedback becoming a personnel attack, and I'd rather avoid that while I'm in the middle of editing Tenth Doctor articles.

Something else I wanted to get off my chest is that they had recently been sending me repeated messages to respond to a talk page that made me feel harassed by them, but I think my message to them to stop was heard.

Apologies for disturbing you with this, but I thought I should bring it up to someone with authority. Many thanks for listening, BananaClownMan ☎  18:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I am genuinely sorry. I shouldn’t of done that, you should of gone to my talk page and given me what I deserve. Tellymustard ☎  21:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd have to second BananaClownMan's request so as to avoid an edit war at Theory:Timeline - Eleventh Doctor. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  20:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * And I don't think their edit summary at said page reading "They are though. Now stop. They have been this whole fucking time" is appropriate. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  21:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry to message a third time, but I'd consider the latest edit summary on Theory:Timeline - Thirteenth Doctor ("next time fix it and don’t be an nasty American") a personal attack. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  21:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:Jack "BtR" Saxon that some admin intervention is required, and that whatever actions they decide to be appropriate should be taken regarding User:Tellymustard's actions and words; since recently joining the wiki, they have brought disorder to timelines, insisted on changes that were slowly undone from discusions on talk pages, harassed editors to reply to talk pages without considering what they might be doing in their personnel lives that might be delaying such actions, made rude comments and engaged in foul language against a fellow editor, the last two can be seen here. I'd go so far as to say these could be considered violations of the "no personnel attacks" rule, but that is for an admin to decide, and since User:Scrooge MacDuck is the only admin that contributes to timeline pages these days, I believe they can make the most unbiased decision.BananaClownMan ☎  00:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have mixed feelings on User talk:Tellymustard which also likely includes personal attacks. On the one hand, yeah, white Americans are pretty awful, speaking as one myself. On the other, it's not really something you should use as an insult, it's more a self deprecating joke. Similar to how a lot of left wing Brits complain about how they're British. My personal view is "who among us hasn't violated T:NPA", this alone gets an eye roll from me. It's rude and should be addressed, but not the end of the world. The real issue is that he's continuing to be disruptive after other users have repeatedly asked him not to be, and isn't even slowing down. This isn't a DiS situation where we had a very high quality editor who just couldn't stop getting into fights every few days. DiS frustrated me, but I was perfectly willing to tolerate him for the work he did. This is someone who's repeatedly being disruptive in how they edit and constantly being rude to people. At the very least they need time to cool off and think about how we edit things imo. Najawin ☎  01:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I really should of first gone onto the talk page for my edits on ten and eleven’s timeline. I also harrased bananaclownman which I think I really should get some sort of punishment for. I know this isn’t helping my case but I think on thirteens timeline both me and jack (Is that what we call you? Or are we supposed to use your full username?) well I think both me and jack did some things we shouldn’t of though. Jack should of gave me time to fix my edits before he reverted them again. Also I was unclear about what he was talking about, I thought he was talking about the good doctor being italicized not it takes you away. But I shouldn’t of snapped at him like that and I shouldn’t of called him a American. Tellymustard ☎  06:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It's too late to try and salvage the situation. Now you have made offensive language towards other users and made racial remarks by using "Nasty albino Americans" to describe someone you thought was being "nasty" to you when their only crime was correcting an error in your editing judgment, but have also invaded what was to be a message for User:ScroogeMacDuck alone and made a mountain out of a mole hill by continuing this harassing behavior, I fear I can only recommend that User:Tellymustard be exiled from the wiki for however long an admin believes is warranted for conduct unbecoming an editor. I'm only sorry that User:ScroogeMacDuck has to take time out of what I imagine is a busy schedule to intervene.BananaClownMan ☎  08:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I didn’t continue harrassing. I am sorry for harrassing you on your talk page. I also was not racist, all I said was that white male americans are generally not good people, and it is also not racist because I am a white male american. Tellymustard ☎  09:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm gay but it absolutely wouldn't be acceptable for me to say that another user is acting like a nasty homosexual. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  09:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I am sorry for using the term albino I see how that is descriminatory. The homosexual example is different because gay people haven’t done anything bad. White male americans are sometimes fascists (ex: nerdrotic). But I see how that comment might of offended some people and I shouldn’t of been that extreme. I am not against Americans, my best friend is a white American lesbian. I simply dislike nazis and I am sorry for making such a généralisation. Not all white male Americans are facsist, just some are. Tellymustard ☎  09:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I think we've given Scrooge enough to think about here. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  09:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * When I think about it I am sorry for the whole statement. Tellymustard ☎  10:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Vandals
Could you lock Series 14 (Doctor Who), Series 15 (Doctor Who), and The Many Lives of Doctor Who (comic story) to only autoconfirmed users for a while? They've been repeated targets for vandals. Najawin ☎  20:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

BBC DVD covers
Hi, I've been gathering every BBC DVD cover image on the wiki into one of my sandboxes, in order to see where there are any missing covers or duplicates.

Pop over and have a look, and feel free to upload any of the missing covers.

User:Doc77can/sandbox12

P.S. I'm messaging several users so check the upload log first.

Doc77can ☎  20:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Speedy rename
Hi there, Seems I made a little booboo on the page currently called "No Go Tro Fo Wo", which should be called "No Go Flo Tro Wo". I've left a speedyrename, which I had to revise on how to do it, since it's been ages since I've done one. If you get two second, could you hop on over? I've relistened to the audio several times and immediately spotted the error.

Thanks in advance, The Farty  Doctor   Talk  18:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Oversized images
Hi, Scrooge. I've gone through and shrunk a few hundred images larger than the 100 KB, but it's a tiring task.

I'm not sure what the admins can do about it, but there's a lot of images that exceed the limit that I haven't got around to. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  15:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Dalek
Hi there, hoping this finds you well. I'd just like to clarify the position on the pages Dalek War Machine, Mark II Travel Machine and Skaro City Dalek as I am somewhat confused. I personally feel that all three should stand as their own pages though I guess it depends on how one defines the subjects. "Dalek War Machine" as I understand refers to the original Daleks from the Yarvelling origin story in Genesis of Evil, though the page on it has come to cover all appearances by Daleks without slats. "Mark II Travel Machine", the page for which I created not too long ago, is the equivalent of the War Machines in the Davros origin story, with The History of the Daleks identifying slats as a distinguishing feature of the Mark III Travel Machine. I'm not entirely sure that one title should redirect to the other considering the different origin stories, my motivation for the "Mark II Travel Machine" article, and indeed the "Mark III Travel Machine" which was itself a redirect to casing (though evidently not all Dalek casings are necessarily Mark III Travel Machines) for the longest time, was to capture these pieces of Dalek history with what was relevant to them for the purposes of simplicity.

Then there is the matter of "Skaro City Dalek". Making use of a conjectural title from Doctor Who: Figurine Collection, it was my intention for the page to be based on the faction of Daleks seen in The Daleks, who may have been wiped out at the end of that story or went on to form the Dalek Empire with the Genesis Daleks. Though it turns out Dalek Survival Guide uses the name as a valid source, it may complicate matters somewhat by applying it to Daleks living in the city post-The Daleks, thus designating the silver Daleks from The Evil of the Daleks as later Skaro City Daleks. (Perhaps had it been published this year it would have counted The Magician's Apprentice/The Witch's Familiar.) Truth be told I'm not entirely sure how this issue should be settled but I will propose my rough idea. To repeat, I feel that "Dalek War Machine" and "Mark II Travel Machine" should be separate pages, though the history of the slatless Daleks should be kept somewhere. Regarding "Skaro City Dalek", I feel there may be a need for some sort of clear-up since, from where I'm standing, I don't see much of a difference between that page and "Dalek War Machine". MrThermomanPreacher ☎  18:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick reply. I don't entirely agree that The Daleks faction does not need a page but I'll put that aside for now. Though I can see how "Dalek War Machine" and "Mark II Travel Machine" may link to the same thing, I'm still not exactly sure what the difference between "Dalek War Machine" and "Skaro City Dalek" is as their pages stand now, perhaps because admittedly I haven't really considered much of a difference between variants and casings. For instance, I see Special Weapons Daleks, Defence Drones and the like as Dalek variants that are distinguished by their casings, though I recognise that there are Dalek creatures such as the Dalek Prime, the Black Dalek Leader and the Reconnaissance Dalek that go through multiple casings. I guess there is the Imperial Dalek faction, which encompasses the Necros Dalek casings. Would that sort of thing be happening here? I'm just trying to figure out where exactly "Dalek War Machine" ends and "Skaro City Dalek" begins. At the risk of complicating this further there is the Dalek Earthforce who also don't have slats. Would they count as "Dalek War Machines", "Skaro City Daleks", both or neither? MrThermomanPreacher ☎  19:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * So "Dalek War Machine" is the casing and the "Skaro City Dalek" the mutant... but "Skaro City Dalek" is your "proper name for the slatless Daleks"? If "Skaro City Dalek" refers to mutants then it sounds like a faction to me, and I'm not sure where that faction ends. Barring isolated "impurities" like the Red Rocket Rising Daleks and the aforementioned Defence Drones I could see this going to the "present day" Daleks in the post-Time War universe. I'm beginning to see your point that "Skaro City Dalek" is not necessarily the best name here. MrThermomanPreacher ☎  19:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok. So the "Skaro City Dalek" is a type of Dalek drone. Indeed, that is what I see when I read the lead on the article. So by this definition individuals such as the Red Dalek Leader and the Black Dalek Leader would not be "Skaro City Daleks" despite their use of slatless casings... these casings would be "Dalek War Machines", wouldn't they? As I understand it now "Skaro City Dalek" is an early, if not the original incarnation of the Dalek drone, a predecessor to later "incarnations" such as the slatted Silver Daleks, the Grey Daleks, the Bronze Daleks and the Red Drones? MrThermomanPreacher ☎  19:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Alright. So "Dalek War Machines" are slatless casings, and "Skaro City Dalek" is the drone caste in this early, slatless Dalek Empire. I guess that answers the question as to when they end, that is naturally they both end when slats are added to the mix and we have a slatted Black Dalek leading Silver Dalek drones, then slatted Gold Daleks leading Grey Dalek drones etc. Thank you for taking the time to explain. MrThermomanPreacher ☎  20:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Harassment report
Hi Scrooge,

I'm coming here to tell you that I think I've been severely let down by the admins. For a while now I have felt harassed and hounded by User:Jack "BtR" Saxon and have repeatedly asked for them to leave me alone/cease contact with me altogether (if they have a problem I don't see why they can't pass it onto an admin instead of contacting someone they know is uncomfortable with them). Every single time I edit on this site I am instantly contacted by them with unfriendly messages and accusations. In the past I've been accused of edit warring, among other things, and I've just been accused of "willfully ignoring" the site rules. I've reached the end of my tether and so I'm contacting Wiki directly to ask them what my next steps should be. No user should be forced to interact with another user that constantly makes them feel the way I've been made to.

They will attempt to portray themselves as simply challenging my "rule breaks" but there is a way that this should be done. I have tried to take the advice aboard - as can be seen with my latest image upload where I tried in vain to amend the image size; https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Liberation_of_the_Daleks_(comic_story)?oldid=3366684 but then had to revert it here https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Liberation_of_the_Daleks_(comic_story)?oldid=3366685 as I'd clearly done it wrong.

It is a massive breach of T:NPA to accuse another user of "willfully ignoring" the rules especially. You can't simply tell a user to do something and accuse them of intentionally going against the rules when they don't instantly know how to do it (nowhere has this user shown me how to do these things other than pointing me towards Help:Image cheat card). DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  14:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I attempted to resize the image while uploading, but it uploaded anyway at the wrong size. There was an "advanced" section upon uploading so I used the custom size dial there but it didn't seem to work. So, I thought better to just go into it and shrink the image down and I planned to ask for help at a later point but before I could even think about doing that the message from Jack came through.


 * I personally think it is outrageous that there is no rules in place regarding harassment, so I am still going to contact Wiki (maybe even simply to suggest that they install that as a rule going forward?). Fair enough if someone demands nobody contact them that's a whole different matter, but this is one user who has continuously hounded me with messages I've found to be accusatory or unpleasant. Anyway, I thank you for dealing with this instant so swiftly. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  14:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to update you on my findings after having contacted Wikia itself about my perceived harassment. They were helpful in leading me to this page on Community Central. One case of harassment is clearly given as "Repeatedly contacting someone who has asked you to stop." I have lost count of how many times I have asked this user to stop contacting me and to instead go through an admin if they feel like I'm doing something wrong. And time after time this has been ignored by the user in question and by the admins who have refused to see it as harassment. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  11:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There's few things more malicious in my eyes than repeatedly contacting/interacting with a user who has told you many times that they feel uncomfortable/harassed and would like to have no interaction with you whatsoever. I absolutely do wish to request this user refrains from contacting me in future but, as I've been trying to suggest for six months, they are free to ask an admin to intervene if they think I'm doing something wrong. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  11:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Another message has been left by this user on my talkpage. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  22:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

DrWHOCorrieFan
Hey, there. I'd refute that I've tried to present myself as an admin. DrWHOCorrieFan has, I believe, been here for a while and knows who the admins are, and the fact that I suggested I would inform the admins makes it clear that I'm not one. It was never my intention to give any indication that DrWHOCorrieFan should, would or could be blocked. I never mentioned blocking or any other possible punishment at all, in fact.

When I let them know what the rule was, they responded with, "This will be ignored". When they continued to break the rule I told them about, I think it was natural to believe that the rule was being ignored. Had they not made that comment and had they indicated to me or responded to Epsilon's message saying that they had any difficulty, I wouldn't have assumed this. I also deny being rude and would challenge DrWHOCorrieFan, who has previously accused me of lacking moral decency, and am frequently baffled by DrWHOCorrieFan's claims of harrassment.

At the end of the day, we're all just people behind screens writing about a silly show. I've got nothing against DrWHOCorrieFan despite what they seem to think and will send them a message making them aware of this. Unfortunately, despite the rule about image sizes, which I've always thought was very clear, a large number of users have been and continue to upload images that are in excess of the limit. I've gone through and shrunk hundreds of images.

In the past, I've messaged another admin specifically about DrWHOCorrieFan's message that they would ignore me - I forget who, I'm afraid - and I sent a more general message to you about how widespread the breaking of this rule is. By no means do I think people are doing it maliciously, but it's something that doesn't seem to be policed. Because of this, I've messaged several users and, if my messages have seemed overly officious, it's an unfortunate side effect of working in the legal sector. I'll make more of an effort to sound more relaxed and conversational. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  15:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Okay, that's fair enough. I'll confess that I'm not sure how to let someone know about a rule without sounding adminny, but I'll do my best in future. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  15:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I do think that that's a tad silly but, yeah, I could have left that message on Bongolium's talk page rather than DrWHOCorrieFan's if, for a reason I can't discern, they find it terribly distressing. Sorry to cause you bother by proxy. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  12:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings
Merry Christmas, User:Scrooge MacDuck, and have a Happy New Year. Sincerely, BananaClownMan ☎  10:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Admin rights
According to this page: Special:ListUsers/sysop they have. As for the "administrator" tag on the top of users' pages, I seem to recall that takes time for stuff to process through the system. The Special:ListUsers/sysop shows more of a true reading than what displays on the page. When Bongolium500 starts to edit, and they should find that they have admin rights. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Image help
Hi Scrooge!

I'm just dropping in to ask how to resize pictures? I know last time you said that I should have not uploaded before resizing but I've ended up doing it again. I'm completely baffled. Any directions would be much appreciated. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  16:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Forums
Has someone let JDPM know that they're back? I know he was excited to work on some threads, if he's still interested in being on the wiki at all. Najawin ☎  00:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

"The Mysterious Planet" not a story??
Oh, really? Then I apologise. I completely agree but must have misunderstood. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  13:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, Scrooge. Would you mind having a look at mine and NateBumber's conversation about season 23 on our respective talk pages and clarifying some things? Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  16:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Master infobox titles
Hi Scrooge. Just wanted to clarify - I know the individual Master pages are still a work in progress, but some simply have the title "The Master" in infobox headers, whilst others have names such as "Decayed Master". Is there some consistency/logic to which incarnations have agreed upon names and which don't?

I ask because in the "Incarnations of the Master" list, for example, "Saxon" is inverted commas but the infobox title is just "The Master" but then "Spy" is also in inverted commas but the infobox title on that page is "Spy Master".

Cheers! FractalDoctor ☎  21:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Temporary forums validity debates
Hey. That's no problem at all and probably sensible. I'll get to it. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  18:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm wildly unconvinced, but it's worth discussing. With that said, you've clearly passed the support mark of my proposal, so I'll keep mine up to maintain temporal priority if your discussion fails. ;) Najawin ☎  22:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Judgment
Hi, there. "Judgment" is used in British English but almost exclusively in reference to the ruling of a court, so a member of the public can make a judgement but a judge makes a judgment. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  19:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Woops! I'm afraid I missed that. That's my bad. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  19:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Merlin Master
Hello, there, User:ScroogeMacDuck.

I find you comment about the Merlin Master possibly being a healthier Decayed Master that pre-dates The Deadly Master a fascinating idea, and I was thinkingh about adding it to my sandbox page for the Decayed Master as a head-cannon, but I was hoping to get an idea of the Merlin Master's personality first. I don't often do this, but I wanted to ask if you knew where I could the Merlin Master's stories online, for free or to purchase. Failing that, since you have edited his page the most, I wandered if you you could update his Personality profile, when you have the time of course.

Thank you for your time, and I eagerly await your reply, Sincerely, BananaClownMan ☎  10:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. Yes, it is a pity that the actions of a few ne'er-do-well prevent fans like us from hooking up to discuss shared interests, but it is what it is. I've added The Planet of Dust & Other Stories to my Amazon wishlist, something to get for my next birthday or when I need more items for a free delivery. In the meantime, I'll use what you've provided me to construct a psychological profile, hopefully one that can allow someone with more inside to expand upon, once I've finished my re-watch of the Twelfth Doctor era for his psychological profile and my personnel episode tier list. (I've just finished Series 9.) BananaClownMan ☎  11:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Re: Discord
I'm wiki-only for the day, but I'll ping you when I'm fully back online! – n8 (☎) 19:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Could I trouble you to merge User:NateBumber/Sandbox/Minister of Chance into First Minister of Chance, for edit history preservation etc? – n8 (☎) 16:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm still not back – traveling this week, and – oh, I won't bore you with the details. But on the upside I did prep an opening post for the T:SPOIL thread at User:NateBumber/Sandbox/1. – n8 (☎) 13:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Re: Dimensions in Time proposal
Hiya Scrooge! What I was getting at is: we presently cover DiT as if its events were something that actually, physically happened to the Doctor. However, the novel First Frontier, contains a nod to the story, in which the Doctor states he once dreamt that his enemies chased him around the EastEnders set. Nothing more than a fun little reference to a then-invalid story, but now that DiT is valid, wouldn't common sense dictate that its events were exactly that: the dream that the Doctor described? It's like how the Titan comics story, Meet the Fam, was later established as not actually having happened but were instead a false memory.

I hope that makes sense. WaltK ☎  00:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Heeeey… I don't mean to bug ya, but I was kinda at least hoping on some feedback on the matter, if not as a forum thread, then as advice from a mod ^^ WaltK ☎  20:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Well… this is awkward! It seems Fandom didn't even bother to notify me of your responses! Derp. That all checks out as far as I'm concerned. Proposal retracted. WaltK ☎  20:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The Other Jack
Hi, Scrooge. So both Ruth and Jack (The Kraken's Lament) were moved (to Ruth Leonidas and Jack McSpringheel respectively) by User:HolmestoHomes, now permanently blocked. Both of these names are incorrect and, given that I added a rename template to Ruth's page in February 2022, I thought it would be alright to move both pages back. They're both relatively obscure pages, were moved without discussion and I didn't think anybody would be any more likely to engage in a discussion about moving Jack's page than Ruth's. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  16:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I understand that and agree, but Carole Ann Ford was credited as playing "Susan Foreman". David Ames has only ever been credited as "Jack" as far as I'm aware. And how many stories was he ever called "Jack McSpringheel" in? Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  21:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thing is, I very much doubt that anybody knows Ruth as Ruth Leonidas for any other reason than because her wiki page was named that. "Miss Leonidas" was said in one line in Brand Management and then mentioned again in The Weather on Versimmon, a Big Finish novel. If Jenny were to have been called "Miss Smith" a few times in a professional capacity in her audio series, would we move her page to Jenny Smith? I find that unlikely. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  16:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Non-narrative
Oh, never pinged you. I edited all of the "nonlinear" bits except one, because people were actually discussing nonlinear stories as well as interactive ones in the thread in question. Cheers. Najawin ☎  00:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Master infobox
Oh, really? It seems strange to exclude him when he's made more appearances than the Lumiat and goes by "the Master". Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  13:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I have to say I don't agree with that, especially when we have the War Doctor (whom I'd argue is more controversial given that there are accounts that have Eighth regenerate straight into Ninth) in the Doctor's infobox. I think Milo Parker and James Dreyfuss should be in the Master's infobox. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  13:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll add it to my to-do list! Thanks. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  14:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Appearance lists.
Whenever you or another admin has the time. OS12 did a bunch but didn't finish. Najawin ☎  19:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's an Op
Hey, just wanted to bring to your attention that I went ahead and wrote an OP for our image policy, which actually covers several of the most popular topics on TARDIS:Temporary forums, since your brought up that no one else had. You can find it at User:OttselSpy25/Guide to Images Sandbox. I tried to include several topics at once that were all kinda similar. OS25🤙☎️ 21:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Okay, it should be done now! OS25🤙☎️ 22:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Lords Celestial
Yes, the singular phrase "Lord Celestial" is never used in any source – in fact, I would characterise its absence from The Book of the War as an intentional omission which gets at the heart of what Celestis are. There's nothing grammatically incorrect about it, as it's merely the noun rather than the adjectival form of the species name. It's no more incorrect than saying my species is "humanity" or yours is "waterfowl". – n8 (☎) 17:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing it to Celestis is fine by me, though. – n8 (☎) 17:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, I would absolutely say that the Doctor belongs to the species of the Time Lords! Such a thing is normal English usage. But fine, I've made the changes as you insist. – n8 (☎) 17:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

AdricLovesNyssa‎
Hi, Scrooge. I've left AdricLovesNyssa‎ a few messages because they haven't been linking the origin field in infoboxes, but they haven't got back to me and continue to do it. I don't want to look like I'm hounding them, so would you or another admin be able to drop them a message about it so I don't have to keep doing it for them? Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  18:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey there. AdricLovesNyssa continues not to link the origin fields despite another message I've left them. Obviously it's not doing any harm, but it does make more work for other users. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  12:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Cosmology
When you have time, could you glance at The Cosmology of the Spiral Politic (feature)? We're still working out precedent here and I'm not sure if my write up is how we'd want to do this. It's written in a similar voice to the actual piece, which might not be what's optimal, given the nature of this piece/the wiki. I try to do somewhat similar with all of my summaries, but, well, given that this is an in-universe reference work it's weird enough that it might not be optimal. Feedback would be appreciated. Najawin ☎  00:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, is this better btw? Najawin ☎  20:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Natarl Non-Narratives
Oh hey, sorry I didn't notice your message yesterday. Understood. Frankly, I don't think I wanna make those pages, so I'll instead move the stuff to the proper BTS place. (Hell of a page in any way, very impressive what LegoK9 added to it!) I'm a creature of the old, it can be left to the current generation more intune with policy. Cheers. :) CoT     ?  19:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually nevermind, I recant. I can sort this. Will be more informative. CoT     ?  19:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

"If applicable"
I don't agree with that interpretation at all. "If applicable" isn't the same as "if appropriate". I also don't see any logic to referring to Amy Pond as "Amy" but not Bernice Summerfield as "Benny", and I'd argue that the series being called Bernice Summerfield as you've pointed out makes it more pointless to do so. If some characters should have their first name used as the template states, and if they woild have yo be used anyway if they were one of two main characters, then I don't see the point. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  16:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)￼


 * (Sorry, it took several tries to respond to your first message on my phone and I figured I'd wait until I was on my laptop to respond to your second.)
 * Yeah, I agree that what it currently says isn't ideal. Some characters, like Benton or Klein, are better known by their surname after all. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  22:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Undelete a talk page
Hey, could you undelete Talk:Skirmish at Tranquil Repose? It's directly referred to in a few old talk pages and seems to be relevant for Forum:Skirmish at TARDIS Wiki. (In general I don't like talk pages being deleted, but that's just me.) Since I'm trying to build up a bit of a historical record, having it available would be helpful. Najawin ☎  05:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Re:Dr.Omega, well, it branched off our discussion at Talk:Marticide (short story). If all we're doing is discussing the honorific, I can do that. But I figured the character is weird enough that we might want to discuss a broader level of coverage than what we have now, and I don't know anywhere near enough to do that. If you think this is a bad idea, I can just do the honorific post. Najawin ☎  16:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh, Skirmish was always going to be outdated, but it was still interesting from a historical POV. Yeah, the Dr Omega one's really weird. I guess a further related question is "at what point does a public domain character become a DWU character?" If we're including certain Dr Omega works, is it because of Dr Omega's appearance under a different name in Marticide? Or is it because of the ship, which is a DWU concept in its own right? We obviously don't consider every Sherlock Holmes story to be part of the DWU, but would we consider an Erasing Sherlock sequel that focused solely on characters in the Holmes canon? Probably not, but it's weird enough to be a discussion. What about Urizen under T:HOMEWORLD? There's a lot of weird corner cases that we haven't explicitly discussed that this discussion is going to touch on, since the character is both public domain and only really used as a Doctor Who adjacent character. Technically speaking, Rule 2 forbids all of these as it's currently written, but I think this is more of a glitch in the wording, since I fully expect someone sooner or later to release some DWU IP they create to the public domain as best they can. Najawin ☎  21:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * When you have the time, could you restore Talk:Handramit? It's referred to in Forum:How do we best include Faction Paradox on the wiki?. Najawin ☎  09:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Still nice to have, thank you. (And I do think the Proms/Prime discussions are different, as I think we have more evidence as to how Moffat's usual methodology works. But, ultimately, we don't have R4 evidence against in the first place, so it's a moot point.) Najawin ☎  18:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Audios
I'm sure something is in the pipeline eventually, no worries. It was more a joke about this. Najawin ☎  22:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * He's in Insurgency 101 with Mellicia Clutterbuck, albeit at an earlier stage in his life. (And Memes already referenced the Wildthyme/Columbo story, which is what I would have gone with.) Najawin ☎  22:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So since we still don't have the forums that contain all the T:HOMEWORLD discussion stuff, do you remember where precisely this was discussed?
 * But there are subtler cases. For example, if a story is licensed to use Bernice Summerfield but not the BBC-owned character of "the Doctor", and has Benny mention some detail regarding "a time traveller" with whom she once visited Project Eden in 2157, then, through the in-universe connection made in PROSE: Lucifer Rising, we can state that those details belong on our page about the Seventh Doctor.
 * I don't recall it in the main FP thread, but, I mean, I obviously last read that years ago, so my recollection is foggy at best. Is there a talk page somewhere? (I just want to cite it in a discussion if you know where it is. If not, one of the earlier and more definitive examples of us doing this would be very helpful!) Najawin ☎  07:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think Thread:279761 discussed whether descriptions of characters/events used in fully licensed stories with one fully licensed character from the story transferred over was enough to justify merging things. Again, could be misremembering. The wayback we have for the infobox discussion doesn't convince Amorkuz that Lolita is The Master's TARDIS. Maybe it happened after that was saved. Najawin ☎  16:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ...You're right, I very much missed the "not".
 * I'm not sure the thread is doing quite the same thing, it's using the Homeworld principle (at least in part) and then using in-universe evidence to establish continuity based on physical similarities, rather thanactions. Maybe I'm trying to be too charitable to a certain ex-user. I'll give it some thought, thank you. Najawin ☎  17:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

River
That was one of the particular discussions that (almost?) got DiS blocked back in the day because he said that consensus was in favor of keeping it in the infobox. See Talk:River Song/Archive 6 for the entire ordeal. (In fact, when DiS was permanently blocked BCM removed it. I put it back to encourage discussion, which never materialized. So this is just cleaning up after myself 2 years later, really.) Najawin ☎  09:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

New Cycle edit
Sorry to trouble you at this hour, but how come you took out the bit of the 2013 new life cycle possibly being mooted by Timeless Child revelation?

Kevin &#39;Chalky&#39; Kaiba ☎  22:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Not Scrooge, but I hope I can help explain. The stories relating to the Timeless Child don't really say anything about that. We can merely gather that the Timeless Child, prior to being the Doctor, had an indefinite, probably infinite amount of regenerations, and that Tecteun biologically implemented the twelve-regeneration limit into Time Lords. The Doctor presumably had this limit implemented when the last incarnation working for the Division was mind-wiped and turned into a Time Lord. Additionally, in The Time of the Doctor, the Eleventh Doctor is very clearly about to die and has no more regeneration energy. But also, this entire thing is itself mooted by the several Capaldi-era implications that the new life cycle might be infinite. Chubby Potato ☎  23:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Honestly, three years ago was when I walked away from Who more or less altogether. This mooting it was what I had gathered from people talking about it.


 * Kevin &#39;Chalky&#39; Kaiba ☎  07:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Re:Re:Disney Time
Ack! Yes, I'm so sorry, I did see your DM but simply never got around to responding! Thanks for the prodding. And that's very odd. I'll get in touch with them about that in a little while 👍 WaltK ☎  15:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Queer cats OP
Hmm, I thought the "opt out" option discussed the first issue. I'll revisit it.

As for the second issue, it's not that T:BOUND establishes that these categories can exist, obviously. It's that the argument in question, were it to be taken as successful, would also be successful against IU categories. The argument proves too much. Thus that particular argument must be a violation of T:BOUND. The T:BOUND issue is completely agnostic on all other arguments, just the issue of splitting up people based on characteristics being "othering" has to be considered unsuccessful. That's all. Najawin ☎  19:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Re: Vrs (short story)
Regarding your edit summary "Just because it's short doesn't mean we can reproduce the text in full. Who did this" for Vrs (short story), the edit was made by User:SOTO on 13 November 2013. You can search the history of a page to see who performed what edits. Hope this helps. Shambala108 ☎  04:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * My mistake, I was just trying to be helpful. It won't happen again. Shambala108 ☎  04:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

T:POINT
Politely, in the very first comment I responded with, I did bring up specific new evidence that wasn't addressed in the discussion prior to your ruling. I can understand the frustration, I'm certainly frustrated enough not to touch that thread again until we have the archives. But I think the characterization wasn't quite apt. (You yourself say that evidence from the old forums can be brought up to reconsider forum decisions, by which I assume you must mean precedent and past discussions. I don't think this is materially different, except for the fact the thread was ongoing.) Najawin ☎  20:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * (Oh, and I'll be honest, I expect the archives to have very little to say on some of the threads we've discussed, like subpages. But I absolutely think we should do massive attempts to reconsider the ones where there is commentary, like the non-narrative R1, or anything related to images, etc.) Najawin ☎  20:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * T:POINT requires that new evidence must be presented from prior discussion, so saying "I think the past ruling was in error because of evidence XYZ not considered" is kosher. I think providing historical evidence of how people interpreted T:VS in an explicit confirmation of what I was saying (that parody, regardless of other intent, made things invalid) is sufficient. With that said, if it didn't move your needle it didn't move your needle.


 * I don't think finding new evidence to open discussion is different from what I'm suggesting here. I cannot imagine that in these thread we discussed all the evidence properly doing it entirely from memory. Perhaps, funnily enough, I'm more cynical than you here. (I actually found the original png comments, and they were entirely about size. Can't comment on the stuff after) Najawin ☎  20:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh, people in that thread were very much so disagreeing, and your comment itself could have been read in an ambiguous manner. Perhaps that was my fault for misreading it.
 * I cannot say for certain whether this is what has always been intended when people have cited that rule. But it's what's in line with the rest of our policies and with the evident wishes of the community. And it's in line with the fact that "Parodies don't count" has never been "Rule 5"; just a footnote, an extension of the Four Little Rules. [Bolded emphasis mine.]
 * I think we can say for certain it wasn't how the rule was being applied. But perhaps I'm paying too much respect to precedent until we can trace the reasoning.


 * Subtle distinction, we should on principle look for the evidence to open these threads, for every single thread. I expect some to be easy to track down. Others, not so much. Najawin ☎  21:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I strenuously object to the idea that such issues exist. The reason I placed something there is that I expect it to take quite some time to move up the list, and the OP I plan to write will be incredibly methodical and long. The specific thread referenced is the sequels/prequels to invalid stories thread at User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates 2. It specifically references the fact that we don't use in-universe narrative details, continuity, to determine validity in its reasoning to allow these stories to be valid. R4bp changing this, seeing narrative details as evidence of authorial intent, creates a contradiction in reasoning. Obviously the thread will cover more ground, but it caught my eye as I was scrolling through. Najawin ☎  17:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough because all I said was "creates a contradiction in reasoning". I'm not referencing assertions here, but the specific reasoning used in the closing post, that because we don't use narrative to determine validity we could validate the sequel/prequel stories to invalid stories. If we now decide that narrative and continuity is a guide for authorial intent, we have two options, either sequel and prequel stories are referencing these invalid stories and thus are themselves signaling their authorial intent to be outside the DWU, since the specific stories in contention are those without authorial statements clarifying intent, or we assume validity for these stories and then use them to leverage the old stories back in. There's absolutely no way to justify one decision over the other if we truly accept narrative and continuity as a statement of authorial intent. Najawin ☎  21:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Perhaps unsurprisingly, I find this question begging of the most egregious kind. :P But we can save that for the thread. At the very least I think you'll concede that I'm not in potential violation of T:POINT here, like you were worried, yes? (I truly think it will take months to get up the list, so I'll have time to do the full due diligence the thread deserves.) Najawin ☎  21:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Also, while I'm not unaware of the conflict of interest worries, when you have time, I'd love some feedback at Tardis:Temporary forums/Slot 5: Validity: The Book of the Enemy's Biographies of Authors. Najawin ☎  00:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Pssst
Would you mind terribly if I posted a talk page comment at Tardis talk:Temporary forums about how to move forward now that the forum namespace is open? Obviously I don't want to turn this into some massive debate over what to do, but, you know, regular users probably do have thoughts. Najawin ☎  21:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you move Forum:(SPOILER: The start of RtD2) Quickstart Guides to the right category? SOTO renamed everything "The Panopticon" rather than "Panopticon", but because you locked the page, I can't touch the category of this one. Cheers. Najawin ☎  17:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Category:Panopticon is the old category. SOTO moved everything to Category:The Panopticon. So the thread just doesn't appear at Forum:The Panopticon. Najawin ☎  10:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Doctor of War editing
Hey Scrooge, hope you've been well. I've had a brief chat with @Epsilon the Eternal about the rather long discussion on Talk:Dust Devil (audio story) regarding how this wiki should cover the Doctor of War stories, and after accidentally mistaking Epsilon for an admin, they kindly pointed me in the direction of your talk page and suggested I raise the issue with you.

It's been over 6 months since anyone other than myself contributed to that discussion, and at this point I'm not sure how much further that discussion can progress, especially if I'm the only one contributing to it at this point. Furthermore, at this point, numerous edits have been made about the alternate versions of "prime" universe characters that appear in Doctor of War, ranging from edits on pages such as Fourth Doctor, Sarah Jane Smith, Harry Sullivan, Narvin and many others briefly mentioning their Doctor of War counterparts, to entire pages such as Miss Brown, Dalek (The Warrior's universe), The Master (The Warrior's universe) and Romana (The Warrior's universe); this is despite the Cleanup tag on Dust Devil (audio story) explicitly requesting that such edits and pages not be made until the discussion has been resolved. In particular, Fourth Doctor (The Warrior's universe) was created several months after that Cleanup tag was made, despite said tag using the Fourth Doctor as an explicit example of the kinds of edits that should be refrained from until the discussion was resolved.

It appears that since this discussion began, its exact aim has become very convoluted. Based on the comment in the Cleanup tag, it appears that the original aim of the discussion was to identify whether the Doctor of War universe is a distinct universe or an alternate timeline branching from the "prime" universe, with the final aim being to use the answer to this query to determine how the Doctor of War counterparts to "prime" universe characters should be covered on this wiki. Since this discussion began, the wiki's policy on coverage of alternate realities appears to have become much clearer, as can be seen on Tardis:Merging policy, and with the The Key To Key To Time explicitly comparing The Warrior's universe with the rest of the multiverse, combined with me having listened to all the Doctor of War stories multiple times and examining the exact lanuage used to refer to the Warrior's universe, it seems - at least from my perspective - that there's a clear way to resolve this discussion and give the greenlight for full-blown editing on these stories, rather than leaving the situation in its current state where any editing on these stories is effectively ignoring the discussion.

I would really like to begin editing on these stories myself, but until this discussion is properly resolved I fear doing so could have negative repercussions on my ability to edit on this wiki at all in the future. While I could try raising this concern over at Forum:Temporary forums, I also fear that doing so won't actually progress this matter anywhere given how many discussions are already ongoing over there. The only option I can think of at this point was to raise this concern with an admin and see if some more direct action could be taken, hence why I'm messaging you now.

I know you've received a lot of requests for help, both recently and from myself, so I apologise for dumping this on you, but you've been really helpful in the past, and after Epsilon mentioned you I thought I'd ask you. If you think a different admin would be better to talk to about this, I'll do so. Thanks for reading my message anyway. Thalek Prime Overseer ☎  15:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Apologies for the late response, I've been pretty busy recently. Thalek Prime Overseer ☎  09:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Strib vs Strid
Hi, Scrooge. You seem to have been alternating between "Strib" and "Strid" in your recent edits and, knowing nothing about 10,000 Dawns, I was wondering which one is right? Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  14:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * No problem at all! Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  15:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Heads up about the thanks extension
Hi. I just wanted to give you a heads up that Tardis is testing the "thanks" extension which Fandom will be rolling out to all wikis soon. This extension allows editors to thank other editors for their edits. The editor being thanked will then recieve a notification. Therefore, while you're actively performing edits, you may receieve a few more notifications than normal. If you notice any bugs, pass them onto User:Spongebob456. Bongo50  ☎  19:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Two quick points
Just to clarify, I didn't intend my comment about "categories and delineations" to have anything to do about whether or not we should cast out parody - it was solely about authorial intent and narrative. But I can understand why it might be brought up for structuring a closing post. On another matter, Category:Parodies and pastiches is in Category:Non-DWU stories, and contains both TDD and DW? (Interestingly, the addition of this category was made before any of the threads and talk pages I referenced in the thread.) Resolve this as you will. :P Najawin ☎  07:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It seemed minor enough. Only brought it up given the category issue that I stumbled upon during a brief historical dive. Najawin ☎  08:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Unavailable videos?
Hi, I was just flicking through some TV story pages and noticed all the videos that were in infoboxes (under 'memorable moments' etc) on the side have suddenly vanished or are no longer available. "This item is no longer available, but now that you're here, explore the Tardis!" Has something gone wibbly? — Fractal Doctor @  15:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Non-binary person
I've changed "which" to "who" given that it's about people, but I do still find the wording a bit creaky. Where does the definition come from? Is it from The Lovecraft Invasion? Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  18:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm happy with the current wording if you are, but I'm still curious as to where the definition comes from to make sure it's properly sourced. It's been a while since I listened to The Lovecraft Invasion, so I don't want to assume. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  18:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Okie doke. Thank you. I'll be getting around to summarising The Lovecraft Invasion and I assume it must be explained to Constance at some point since she's from the '40s, so I'll be sure to include any definition given. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  18:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Scorpion Gods
Given that he wrote the story in question it does seem like a bit of a coincidence, doesn't it? I was down for validity in the first place for him and Bucher-Jones, I don't have a toooonnnn of objections now. (tbf, I also don't think it's accurate to say that Bucher-Jones bio didn't reference FPU elements. But w/e) Najawin ☎  17:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Lockdown
Just out of curiosity, did we ever make a final decision on the status on the Cook orchestrated Lockdown stories' validity? Might be something to reopen, if we feel up to it. Najawin ☎  20:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Nah, I know the archives didn't, and Adventures in Lockdown doesn't cover everything, like Sven and the Scarf (webcast). I don't think Talk:Doctor Who: Lockdown! actually ever decided on the class of stories as a whole? (Indeed, I think the discussion there leans towards us saying that post AiL the stuff not covered in AiL is invalid.) Just wondering if it was discussed elsewhere. Najawin ☎  21:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I did say "leans". (And yes, the issue of licensing is the relevant portion. "Clarification from Emily re. website stories" introduces enough ambiguity that I'm leaning towards skepticism now.) But if we're standing firm on validity until new evidence is presented given AiL and 554 that's fair enough. Najawin ☎  00:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Re: Tardis Data Core change to Tardis Wiki
I think we may need a forum thread to actually settle this one, while I can see the logic of what you said over on my talk page, I also look at it from the perspective of a new user. The logo says 'Tardis Wiki' the name of the wiki is 'Tardis'. It's only when you deep dive on our documentation does it actually reveal what the wiki's name is and that requires a bit of an explanation to get there. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and created a forum topic for this, upon researching it realised I've led this sort of discussion in the past. Forum:Change name of wiki to Tardis Wiki. --Tangerineduel / talk 03:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

SourceFilter reply
Do not fear, I'm probably the least malicious user on the wiki. I mean, I was taken slightly aback by the response to the edit where I said it rarely seemed used was, Use it then!, which I interpreted in an aggressive tone due to the explanation point. Problem is, and I've made this clear whenever it is brought up, I don't actually know how to use the template, it just showed up one day without instructions attached, which is probably why only a handful of users can use it with confidence, though sometimes only half-heartedly. And since I'm a follower of completionism, but unable to add the templates, the only option I was left with was removal, with the hope it might encourage someone who know how to make them to complete the work. Honestly, it was never "Just Because", if anything it was, "Because I can't".

Now, you say it "is of some benefit". May I ask what these benefits are, because I personally disagree with the statement. These templates, as far as I understand them, serve to cut entries out if wished, which would be counterintuitive to the wiki's stance on embracing all stories as valid, or "canon" to use Russell T Davies' term. Not to mention I fear them interfering with NOTES and REFERENCES that utilise stories from, different platforms and mediums. On a minor note, I've noticed they caused a double space on the timeline theory page for Mickey Smith.

I hope this explains things satisfactually, but I don't mind going into further details if needed. I look forward to hearing back from you. Sincerely, BananaClownMan ☎  09:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Copper-Colored Cupids
Well yes, that's what I thought too, but when I went and checked it never actually says "Department of Festivities", but only Celebration-665. (Although a Department of Christmas does pop up in the fact file Father Christmas.) Although whether the name counts as a DWU element when the concept debuted earlier on is perhaps debatable... I may be wrong, of course, but I'm fairly sure the name "Department of Festivities" comes from Abcedarium. (Sorry, I'm not trying to tell you what happens in your own story, but am just recounting what I see)

(On the subject of short story Vs feature, I wasn't entirely sure which one ought to have been used, so thanks for clearing that up!)

Many thanks, Aquanafrahudy  📢  21:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Ever so sorry, I was looking in holiday vignettes rather than lockdown vignettes, I read it wrong. Complete mess-up on my part, sorry for the inconvenience. :) Aquanafrahudy  📢  21:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

R4bp
I absolutely intend to get to our talk page discussion near the end. There's an entire section called "Potential responses"! It doesn't yet have a subheading, but it's on the list locally on my computer for things to address. Similarly, I do have plans for the continuity vs references issue on individual pages. That response was an immediate one that sprang to mind. As for Forum:Is The Curse of Fatal Death canon?, I have to disagree on how using "canon" taints the discussion, this was made in the interim period where they were actively writing T:VS and were just using the term "canon" to mean "proto valid". I also disagree that they specifically voted on whether or not the references were just too vague - Czech specifically refers to the idea that the reasoning used, (which I interpret to refer to) dragging something into continuity with a reference elsewhere, is counterintuitive. But I'll perhaps amend my post to reflect your knowledge of it. Najawin ☎  23:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm unconvinced that Tangerine's quote here establishes what you're suggesting. Certainly people didn't seem to hold similar views during the Infinity Doctors discussion a year later - failing to be protovalid didn't mean things actively didn't happen. But I'll certainly note your objections as to using it as precedent. (I don't seriously think it's a defeater to R4bp in itself anyhow, as stated. It's one piece of evidence out of many.) Najawin ☎  00:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hoping that phrasing is better. Najawin ☎  02:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The Return of the Discombobulated Woman
Shortly prior to your deletion I began to suspect that The Myriad Carnival wasn't actually a charity anthology. I have had a quick look throughout the internet but fail to see anywhere that suggests this despite my prior belief that it was (perhaps you have knowledge that it is?). Also, this is not a Brenda and Effie story. It is essentially a prequel to Fellowship of Ink that happens to feature Brenda. So, unless The Myriad Carnival was a charity anthology, this story does not fail any previously established rules. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  20:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have no objections I will be remaking this page. I was incorrect in identifying it as a charity anthology, and beyond featuring Brenda it is not official part of the Brenda and Effie series that was deemed not to be covered. Therefore there appears to be no reason as to why we wouldn't cover this story. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  17:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I find it rude of you to tell me "don't do things like taking it upon yourself to "recreate" the page before you'd even heard back from me". You were active last night for several hours in other discussions despite ignoring my message to you, the least you could have done was say that you'd get back to me rather than it looking like a blatant snub. From my point of view you were lucky you even got the message telling you the page was being recreated. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  18:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You made an immediate incorrect ruling based on a mistake that I had made without doing your own research/or reaching out to me. I realised my mistake and therefore it negated the reason you gave for the page's deletion. I'm not sure what rule you're accusing me of breaking here. How is this any different than if an admin were to delete a page for being incomplete and I decided to reinstate a completed version of said page? The reason for the page's deletion was now invalid, and therefore a recreation should be allowed without the need to even contact an admin. You were contacted purely out of courtesy on my part, and in return what should have been an instant approval was instead ignored for an entire day while you continued to actively participate in other discussions. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  18:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The policy you have just presented is about established rules or rulings. No ruling was made against The Return of the Discombobulated Woman itself. You deleted the page because you believed that it went against two previous rulings (about charity publications and The Brenda and Effie Mysteries) but as it didn't the page was free to be recreated. An admin deletion does not automatically create a new ruling and therefore there was no ruling against that story. The policy doesn't even mention deletions at all so if you believe an admin deletion should automatically create a new policy/ruling (which is inappropriate in my opinion) the policy needs updated.


 * Could I suggest that you should perhaps get wiser with your deletions in future? I don't think you should be immediately springing to delete a page without doing your own research or giving the page's creator a chance to protect. You deleted my page mere moments after it was created. Had you added a deletion tag, or reached out to me, and allowed me a chance to have my voice heard this whole thing would have been avoided.


 * No part of me stating that you ignored my message is a personal insult, and again it is very tiring to see that being used in an apparent attempt to try and stop someone's flow of speech in fear of being banned for NPA. The fact is you did ignore my message and that is not an accusation of bad faith because there could be many reasons as to why you ignored my message. But, I gave you ample opportunity to reply and when you didn't I created the page (which I was free to do so due to no policy/ruling being made against it). It is very likely you would still not have replied had I not gone ahead and created the page myself.


 * So, again, I fail to see what I've done wrong. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  19:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * We'll have to agree to disagree. I decided that the ample time for an open-and-shut case that didn't even require me to reach out at all was a day and I stand by it. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  20:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Point
I know you just closed Forum:Relaxing T:HONOUR, so would you take a look at User:NateBumber/Sandbox/1 and let me know if it would be T:POINT-breaking? – n8 (☎) 20:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The Lady in Red Returns
Hey. Hope you're doing well. You've missed a lot. I'd love to catch you up next time I have computer access.

Activist email: islander.of.montreal@gmail.com

I will add you from a new Discord in a bit.

You will be. . . interested by the story. Love from the Island -Phoenix

P.S. What happened to our beautiful colours? -SOTO 19:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, since you're closing threads
I think we've had consensus at Forum:Tie-in website disclaimer pages & handling out of universe sections for over a month now. Obviously an admin's call. But that's my read on it. Cheers. Najawin ☎  18:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Re: Sabbath
Yes, my understanding is that Sabbath was used with Miles' permission. The story was written around the same time of O'Mahony's collaboration with Miles on The Book of the War. I recall reading discussion of this on the Jade Pagoda mailing list while searching for the text of the story. Unfortunately I can't link to that anymore. – n8 (☎) 17:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion Debates
Back in the old forums, we had a rule that you couldn't start an inclusion debate without consuming the work in question. (One I accidentally offended early on, if you'll recall.) It doesn't seem to have made the transition. I think it might be wise to reinstate it. If only for Forum:Validity: Meet Death's Head. (Though there are other reasons.) Just a suggestion. Najawin ☎  17:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify
Do you think the individual sections at User:Najawin/Sandbox 9 are disorienting in themselves if used as individual pages? Since that wasn't addressed. Najawin ☎  18:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Re: Apology
I think it is completely unreasonable for you to expect me to apologise when you yourself acknowledged that you somehow didn't see the serious accusation of libel made against me. Your lack of action made me feel completely unseen and ganged up upon (and Shamblar, and others off-site, have also ackowledged that it may look that way). As a result I find it astounding that you still expect me to apologise for a small comment telling you not to act coy - surely you can understand that is how it looked with your apparent refusal to ackowledge Epsilon's disgression? And, I have nothing to apologise to Epsilon for.

Don't want this to start any more drama, but seen as a note was made instructing me to apologise I wanted to explain my reasoning for not doing so. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  23:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I will certainly not be bullied into apologising. You can block me if you wish but you will be doing so in the knowledge that you have no basis. It is an overexertion of your powers as an admin to demand an apology for yourself when you were the one to cause the entire altercation be being seen to play favourites due to your misreading. Saying that you were being "coy" isn't even an attack, it literally pointing out that you were refusing to give an definitive answer regarding Epsilon's rulebreak which I now know is down to the apparent misreading.


 * I won't use capitals in future. But as for everything else, I don't feel like there's any more to acknowledge. I'd question how fair it would be for you to block me considering you were a large part of the conflict, and actually cited by another admin as an instigator. But if you must, go for it. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  00:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hopefully you can take your own advise and realise that you have taken my "play[ing] coy" comment other than how it was intended. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  00:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Not giving a definitive answer is not a bad faith thing to do, so suggesting that you have refused to give a definitive answer is therefore not an accusation of bad faith. Do you understand? DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  00:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Because I wanted you to give a definitive answer?...


 * It is laughable to me that you are here ordering me not to assume bad faith and attribute negative meaning to other people's comments beyond what they have written, yet in the next breath you are arguing with me about a comment I wrote which you have attributed your own negative meaning onto. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  00:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Funny how when you assume bad faith, when you attribute meaning to someone else's post, when you kick up a whole fuss over a three word sentence, it is an "honest misunderstanding".


 * Not that I need to clear my name any further, but in this example I used "playing coy" to indicate how you were refusing to give a definitive decision against one of us (in this case Epsilon was clearly the aggressor due to the libel accusation) in order to keep us both sweet. This isn't an accusation of bad faith, in fact it is more a suggestion of you being too lenient as from my point of view - not knowing at that point that you claimed to have misread their comment - you should have been coming down harder on them. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  00:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you think these pages should be merged?
I think all of the sex related pages should be merged. I feel like the topic isn't big enough in the whoniverse for it to need seperate pages. It would be more organized if all sex related things were on the "Sex" page. Sliderhostmimic ☎  17:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The Leader
I feel the debate over the species interpretation at The Leader seems to be getting a bit carried away. An IP user's recent additions on the talk page seem to be increasingly contentious towards me. I'm not entirely sure what their editing aim is, as they believe that the article should take the source exactly as written while also asserting that minor hints must mean The Leader a Time Lord without any reasonable doubt and ignoring authorial intent. The reason I started this discussion was because I felt both accounts were getting confused. I've tried to prevent an edit war by building on their edits by inserting the human implication, and explaining this on the talk page, but they've continually reverted this and seem convinced I'm "monopolising" the article without even acknowledging what I've tried to add. I actually had to direct them to the talk page to begin with. There's been a massive misunderstanding that they believe I'm trying to assert the Leader is human in I, Alastair.

Other than you, the IP user and I are the only recent editors, so I feel we may both be getting carried away without any other opinion. I'd like another set of eyes to take a look since I'm not sure if I have the right approach. If my conduct has been wrong, I'll happily hold my hands up, but I'm not sure what more I can do to settle this. BlueSupergiant ☎  12:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)