- 1 Re: Talk page
- 2 Speedy rename
- 3 Vandalism/Block
- 4 The Crimes of Thomas Brewster Editing and Errors
- 5 RE: Serious harassment from admin Scrooge MacDuck
- 6 RE:Admin behaviour
- 7 The Master template
- 8 Redlink in "Add Page' pop-up
- 9 DVD documentaries
- 10 Help - Monster Files naming
- 11 First Doctor timeline
- 12 Infobox
Re: Talk page[edit source]
Ah, it wasn't that it didn't work - I simply hadn't completed the process. I had to go offline to do something, leaving this half done. Thanks for the advice though, it's appreciated. Epsilon (Contact me) 00:25, October 17, 2020 (UTC)
Speedy rename[edit source]
Could you do me a favor and move The Wintertime Paradox: Festive stories from the World of Doctor Who to The Wintertime Paradox (anthology) real quick? I'll do the busywork and tidy up all the links once you do, it's just really bugging me :') – N8 (☎/👁️) 19:01, October 17, 2020 (UTC)
The Crimes of Thomas Brewster Editing and Errors[edit source]
Hey Oncoming, hope you're well. I was originally going to write this on Shambala108's talk page but they seem to be busy and since you're more of an AUDIO expert I thought I would consult you. I listened to The Crimes of Thomas Brewster today and was about the add the plot when I started reading the page entry and realised that there are a lot of errors and a LOT of misinformation. I can see from the history page that you, Danochy and Shambala have been adding a bit to it over the past little while but some stuff needs to be corrected. For example, there's a link to a page for [[Literatos II]]. I listened very carefully to that joke/sarcasm the Doctor tells DI Menzies and the planet is actually called Literalis II (it's hard to catch at first but Colin Baker definitely pronounces it with an 'L'), I guess it's supposed to be a joke on the word "literal". The problem is that, as I just linked, a whole page has already been made for it. So my first question is, how do I deal with incorrect pages like that? I know I'm not supposed to delete them, am I supposed to inform a moderator to delete it or something? Also, I may need someone to go over the page once I'm done editing tomorrow, not just to clean up my mistakes but also, because I haven't listened to a lot of Sixth Doctor audios, there are a LOT of continuity references and such that went over my head. I tried to note whatever I could, but I was just hoping that, if I add the bare text that I wrote down for it, someone could make a note to go through and expand whatever I mention? For example, DI Menzies in the story talks a lot about already having met the Doctor in another adventure but I don't know what adventure that was and I think I missed a lot of the references to that adventure.
Thank you again and I'm sorry I hope I'm not coming across as rude. I was just a bit surprised by the discovery, that's all, but we all have bad days or forget things. Cheers! DoctorQuoi ☎ 05:34, October 24, 2020 (UTC)DoctorQuoi
- Hey Oncoming, got your message! Thank you so much for that incredibly instructive breakdown. Also, I'm really glad I didn't come across as rude or snarky, I was just honestly concerned about the page. I imagine a lot of users read these summaries to get a better idea of whether the audio is worth purchasing. I've certainly consulted a page or two before buying, as they can get pretty expensive haha! I also apologize, I know I said I'd update AUDIO: The Crimes of Thomas Brewster but as always real-life got in the way, so I'll try do it today or at the very latest by end of next week.
- Before I get back to you with changes regarding that story, I did also want to bring your attention to another audio. AUDIO: Invaders from Mars has a page linked to it called Time Lord (Invaders from Mars). I finished editing the page yesterday, adding part 4 of the plot and updating all the relevant Cont./Note/Disc. sections. I noticed that the person who linked it actually didn't catch the reference properly, the "reference" was actually a "Continuity", and was a reference to the story TV: The Time Meddler and the "amoral Time Lord" was actually the Monk. So I suspect the page Time Lord (Invaders from Mars) needs to be deleted, because this page really just refers to the Monk. Just thought I would let you know!! Will be in touch soon regarding Crimes of Brewster! Otherwise, happy Halloween for next week (if you celebrate)! DoctorQuoi ☎ 18:52, October 25, 2020 (UTC)DoctorQuoi
- Hey! Firstly, I'm so sorry for getting back to you so late, funny you should mention taking my time for doing the summaries, as I'm afraid this week has become exceedingly busy, so I'm afraid that's going to be exactly the case haha. Nonetheless, thank you for the kind reply as always and for going easy on a newbie like myself! So, firstly, with regards to Time Lord (Invaders from Mars), I actually didn't realise the vagueness in the story, so my apologies, that's on me. I forgot to mark the time-stamp where it was mentioned, and I, unfortunately, don't have much time to go back and listen to it again (although it's an amusing story haha, but I always enjoy Mark Gatiss episodes!) so I'm afraid I can't quite jog your memory. Do we happen to have a script for this story? It would just be an easy "ctrl"+"f"+"amoral Time Lord" and confirm or deny our suspicion. I am so sorry, I'm usually more diligent than this, I guess I just heard 11th century and Time Lord and my mind immediately latched onto TV: The Time Meddler. I guess for now we should just stand by the original edit and say that it's too anonymous to tell, but under continuity, as you suggested, make a mention that similar to that situation, the Doctor encountered an amoral Time Lord named the Monk when he landed in the 11th Century in Northumbria? I'll leave the judgement call and updating the article in your more capable hands? I'm worried I've done enough damage as it stands haha.
- Secondly, because I'm a bit occupied this week, I'll only be able to update The Crimes of Thomas Brewster part-by-part each day. I just wanted to let you know in case you wanted to go through the edits after I make them to ensure they're following proper wiki guidelines and there's no mistakes. It would just help a lot this one time because I'll use this as a guideline/learning experience to see how to edit the wiki's properly according to the standards you want to set for editing AUDIO pages in future. I'll start with part 2 right now actually. Hope you're doing well! Any Doctor Who-related Halloween plans? I'm going to be watching TV: The Curse of Fenric for the first time on the new TV (it scared me too much as a teenager, so it's the perfect setting haha)! DoctorQuoi ☎ 02:45, October 27, 2020 (UTC)DoctorQuoi
RE: Serious harassment from admin Scrooge MacDuck[edit source]
Hello, I have no idea what to do but I believe I am the victim of serious harassment by fellow admin User:Scrooge MacDuck.
- OS12th, I refer you to the message I left at Shambala's talk page (and to my message on DiSoRiEnTeD1's own talk page) for more context on his behaviour and the circumstances of his, I think you'll agree, well-warranted (and even rather lenient!) two-week block earlier this month.
- As I said there: as a show of good faith and in the hope that it will make DiSoRiEnTeD1 reconsider his bizarre conspiracy theories, I will not block DiSoRiEnTeD1 for this. Feel free to do so yourself if you think it right, however. It's up to you and other admins — or rather, it's up to Wiki polciy. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 17:29, October 28, 2020 (UTC)
- You gained the status of an admin and went through several open discussions that you had been involved with and resolved them to your own satisfaction.
- I did not attempt to disrupt the Wikia - had I attempted to do so I would have reopened said discussions. But no, I simply took my problem to an admin and questioned what had happened - you stated that this was me "reopening the discussion" and blocked me.
- Since then I made a single edit, you accused me of disrupting the Wikia and have threatened to ban me by Sunday if you haven't received an apology. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 17:32, October 28, 2020 (UTC)
- DiSoRiEnTeD1, this is quite enough of you crowding out other people's talk pages with messages not addressed to them. Your (rather feeble) defence of your edits back in early October is something you should have brought to my talk page, on Community Central, weeks ago. This is what Help:I'm blocked is for, and I pointed you to it in my blocking rationale back then.
- Since then I made a single edit, you accused me of disrupting the Wikia and have threatened to ban me by Sunday if you haven't received an apology. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 17:32, October 28, 2020 (UTC)
- If you have anything more to say to me, please take it to my talk page. For the third time, I will not block you if you do this. In fact I have publicly pledged not to block you anyway, and to leave the matter of your discipline for your actions today to other admins. But please communicate. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 17:36, October 28, 2020 (UTC)
RE:Admin behaviour[edit source]
The story had already been ruled invalid so Scrooge was unable to overrule this decision. The new thread was regarding the story’s coverage as a whole - which he ruled entirely in his favour.
I did not create another thread about the story’s validity. I asked an admin to review the decision by a new admin as I believed that they were unfair as he had been involved in the discussions and as a result was not neutral (I did not know that this was not against the rules). Which I still think should be the case - had I been promoted as an admin I could have simply done the exact same thing in my favour, which isn’t fair.
And I did NOT violate T:POINT regarding River Song. I made the initial change and someone took issue with that, therefore the change that should have remained was mine - as that was that state of the page when the discussion was raised. The page has since had River as Human / Porto-Time Lord for months now until a user recently changed it. I simply changed it back to the state of the page when the discussion was raised, and now received the outrageous threat of a ban.
- To be fair to DiS, their placement of human in the infobox was simply reverting an edit User:BananaClownMan took during the time after our discussion stalled out as no consensus has been reached. (BCM not being one of the participants and ostensibly not knowing that it existed) I reverted the edit effectively on instinct given the change + reasoning given, and had it stated "T:BOUND violation" I likely wouldn't have.
- I note that I'm quite confident the current policy would actually be to have her listed as not being a human as well, due to the edit history presented at Talk:River Song - given BCM made to her infobox species and it stood for quite some time before DiS made his own change and immediately caused controversy, but that's not how we've been treating it throughout our discussion. Najawin ☎ 20:51, October 28, 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, just to clarify something quickly: my issue with DiSoRiEnTeD1's River Song edit was not so much the edit itself (which is a bit of a can of worms as described above) as that, in the edit summary, DiSoRiEnTeD1 justified himself by making claims about the status of consensus on the talk page. Regular users aren't supposed to decide when there's consensus, or make edits based on that. There may have been valid reasons to do the same edit that DiSoRiEnTeD1 performed! But he was clearly doing it for the wrong reasons. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 20:56, October 28, 2020 (UTC)
- I was not doing it for the "wrong reasons".
- There was an edit war on River Song's page months ago, User:Shambala108 stepped in and made a decision that "Human" was to be on the page until a consensus was reached in the open discussion. This can be seen in Shambala's reversal of User:Najawin's removal of "Human" from the page (which nobody changed for over three months until the edit that I took issue with). There has not been a consensus reached, and I know that because there hasn't been an admin ruling - so this user was, knowingly or not, reverting an edit which an admin had put in place to prevent edit warring.
- To get threatened with a ban for this is utter lunacy. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 21:02, October 28, 2020 (UTC)
- …Also to be clear, my “threatened” ban (which was actually more of “I should, if I were throwing the book at you, block right now, but I'm giving you a way to wriggle out of it” ban) wasn't just based on DiSoRiEnTeD1's edit rationale at River Song. It was, in my mind, of apiece with his flagrant breach of the code of conduct laid out at Help:I'm blocked — facts dating back several weeks, but which had only just become known to me. I should have thought that was obvious, given the amount of my original talk page message which is devoted to that. Sorry if it wasn't. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 21:06, October 28, 2020 (UTC)
- Telling someone that you will block them if they haven't apologised to you by a specific date is blackmail, threatening and purely disgusting. Something I have never seen an admin on any Wikia do. I will not speak to you privately and I will not be forced to.
While some may think that I am going on a bit, it really is frustrating to be accused of violating T:POINT by two admins when I truly have done no such thing.
Here's a breakdown of what actually happened;
On May 27, 2020 I added "Human" to River Song's template. For some context, Proto-Time Lord has never been stated in-universe to strictly be a human-descended species and therefore I believe that human should be specified in River's infobox. This change was initially reverted by User:BananaClownMan, and I reverted it back. Then User:Snivystorm reverted my edit and I made an additional edit to include my change. This would have been my final edit before opening a discussion, to avoid edit warring. While no subsequent changes were made to the page during that period, a lengthily discussion was held on my talk page between myself, Snivystorm and User:SarahJaneFan, where it was agreed that we would all have to listen to the audio stories again before we were able to say with certainty that Proto-Time Lords were a human descended species, therefore human was left on the page for the time being.
No further change had still been made by July 9, 2020 when User:Najawin opened a discussion titled "Human vs Proto-Time Lord" on River's talk page. The discussion received no interaction and on June 12, 2020 Najawin changed River's to remove "human". Presumably to avoid edit warring, although I can't speak for anybody else, User:Shambala108 stepped in to reverse the change made by Najawin to my version which included "human". Throughout July Najawin's discussion received significant traction but once again fizzled out into nothing.
Then on 25 September, 2020 BananaClown once again removed "human" from River's infobox. As Shambala had stepped in to reverse a similar edit months previously, and since then there had been no alternative ruling by an admin, I reversed the edit citing "no concensus has been reached" only for my edit to be reversed by Najawin (who, going by the chain of events and that their change had already been reversed by an admin, was actually the one violating T:POINT).
Yet it was me who was accused of "stirring up trouble" and "claiming spurious admin authority", and I simply refuse to believe that this wasn't a result of a vendetta against me seeing as it was a totally acceptable edit and the first one I had done in nearly a month! DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 21:43, October 28, 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but this is completely unacceptable. You have just admitted that my change to River Song's page today - which I will be immediately making once again - was acceptable. Yet you refuse to condemn an admin that decided to send me an aggressive message about me attempting to "stir up trouble", etc, because of this correct change. It boggles the mind.
- Likewise, there was absolutely no reason for me to be threatened with a ban if I did not apologise for an earlier "offence" - which I have already severed the time for. Regarding that offence it is absolutely ridiculous too, I have been through T:POINT and at no point does it say that you cannot ask an admin to review another admin's changes - especially that of a rookie admin who has possessed the privleges for a couple of days. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 21:53, October 28, 2020 (UTC)
The Master template[edit source]
Hi how are you? I noticed that you recently archived the latest posts in the Master's talk page, but in doing so, you also archived the templates at the top. I just wanted to check to see if this was intentional or not, as the template info seems like something that should always be on the talk page rather than hidden away in the archives. LauraBatham ☎ 23:55, November 5, 2020 (UTC)
Hey :) So as I'm sure you know, when you click on "Add Page", the option to create a new page with a new name or create a redlink page is presented. There's currently a redlink (named "The Nighmare of TV Centre) which is wrong. It is in reference to the existing page The Nightmare of Television Centre (documentary), is there any chance you can remove this redlink from that menu since it's just the wrong name for an exisitng page? Thanks :) Moxxofbalhoon ☎ 15:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- So it's a bit of a muddle because the title card calls it "TV Centre" but every mention of the documentary on Nightmare of Eden (TV story) uses "television" (and this was before I corrected any links). I shall do a bit more digging and get back to you
- So, very confusingly, both names are used interchangeably. On IMDb it's listed "TV" but on news sites and review sites, they refer to it as "Television". Honestly, I'll leave it up to you to decide, thanks for your help :) Moxxofbalhoon ☎ 16:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
DVD documentaries[edit source]
Hi OncomingStorm12th, thank you for renaming The Nightmare of TV Centre (documentary). I was wondering if you could rename the remaining DVD documentaries without the dab term; I've already added the Speedy rename template to all of them, and will start to change the links in List of Doctor Who documentaries and List of Doctor Who DVD special features accordingly. It would remove all the redlinks in the DVDDOC navbox, as pages exist for all those links just incorrectly named. Thank you in advanced. Doc77can ☎ 18:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, it's just that I was cleaning up most of the page names, as well as adding the dab term - there were a few typos, page names not matching title cards, replacing dashes with colons, making sure the names of pages from the same documentary series match; that sort of thing; trying to kill two birds with one stone. Doc77can ☎ 21:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- The following 11 pages have name issues that I described above -
- Grimm Tales should be Grim Tales (documentary)
- John Kane Remembers... should be John Kane remembers "Planet of the Spiders" (documentary)
- Mary Celeste (documentary) should be Mary Celeste and other Maritime Mysteries (documentary)
- On Location should be Resurrection of the Daleks: On Location (documentary)
- Paddy Russell - A Life in Television should be Paddy Russell: A Life in Television (documentary)
- Perfect Scenario should be The Perfect Scenario (documentary)
- Philip Segal (interview) should be Philip Segal Interview (documentary)
- Playing with Time should be Playing with Time: Scoring Doctor Who (documentary)
- Restoration (The Time Meddler) should be The Time Meddler Restoration: Before & After (documentary)
- Restoration Comparison should be The Time Monster: Restoration Comparison (documentary)
- Visual Effect should be Visual Effect: The Modelwork of "The Invisible Enemy" (documentary)
plus the 6 Dr. Forever! pages -
- Doctor Forever! should be Dr. Forever! (documentary series)
- The Celestial Toyroom (documentary) should be Dr. Forever!: The Celestial Toyroom (documentary)
- Lost in the Dark Dimension should be Dr. Forever!: Lost in the Dark Dimension (documentary)
- Love and War (documentary) should be Dr. Forever!: Love and War (documentary)
- The Unquiet Dead (documentary) should be Dr. Forever!: The Unquiet Dead (documentary)
- The Apocalypse Element (documentary) should be Dr. Forever!: The Apocalypse Element (documentary)
Help - Monster Files naming[edit source]
Sorry, me again, I want to make pages for the five missing "Monster Files" instalments from the Series 5/6 DVDs & Blu-rays, but I don't know what to call them, as they are titled multiple different ways.
The three existing pages are called -
On the DVD cover its The Monster Files, on the vanilla DVD menu its Monster Files, but on the box set DVD menu its Monster File.
Then there's the issue with each instalment; for instance on the Series 5 DVD box set, the contents booklet calls the first one Monster File: The Daleks, but on the DVD menu its called Monster File - The Daleks, then on the title card its The Daleks Monster Files.
Then for Series 6 the words Monster File, in any variation, don't appear on the title card at all.
Plus, they're made by Doctor Who Confidential; their logo & theme music appear at the end; so do they need the (CON episode) dab term.
- Hi, sorry I've taken so long to get back to you, but Christmas and all; anyway I've created the 5 missing monster files pages, linked them together, and added them to the Confidential navbox. I chose to keep the 'The' as it helps to differentiate from the BBC website monster files.
- I just need you to move the existing three pages to the following, in order to match up with the pages I've made:
- Monster File - The Gangers - The Monster Files: The Gangers (CON episode)
- Monster File - The Antibodies - The Monster Files: The Antibodies (CON episode)
- Monster File - The Cybermats - The Monster Files: The Cybermats (CON episode)
First Doctor timeline[edit source]
Ah yes, I’m a regular editor of the timelines so I was fully aware that a timeline already existed. I made the new timeline as a way to avoid the politics of the other timeline. I don’t think there’s actually anything in any rules against multiple pages focusing on the same topic, after all it is a theory user space. But if I’m wrong there than I’ll concede to that.
Effectively there’s different groups with very different ideas on how the timelines should be, and I don’t see a consensus ever being reached to be honest. Which is why I went down the separate pages route.
I understand what you’re saying, but I just don’t think it’s fair that I should be asked to move to a sandbox.
The timeline I made wasn’t just for myself but for everyone so that it can actually be a community space again. We’ve tried using talk pages, they get ignored. We’ve tried going to user pages, we get ignored or refuted with no chance for discussion. As soon as you make an edit, it’s scrutinised and rewritten as if you can’t be trusted to make an edit - but more often than not it’s reverted without so much as an edit summary. It’s become impossible to have a discussion or come to a fair conclusion at this point and it’s not just me who feels that way, as I was in active discussion with other users while creating the new timeline.
The timelines as they stand have loads of errors and discrepancies because they’re pretty much copy and pasted from the reference guide and other timelines. We’ve been doing our best to research and give it a proper overhaul. We’ve even held discussions over timeline etiquette and what we can actually do to improve these timelines but it always falls on deaf ears.
It’s supposed to be a community space but there’s no community there because everything gets reverted. There’s so few people actually editing there anymore because it’s become so difficult to actually get anything done. SarahJaneFan ☎ 19:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I believe you made the newer type of conflict infobox. I have a question on that. Is it possible for it to display third or fourth factions involved in a conflict? For example, could it be used to add a third faction column on the 2021 Dalek civil war, which could be used to place Team Tardis/Humanity -- Editoronthewiki ☎ 17:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)