Actually, I would dissent on the indication that the ipatch is "not a normal patch"
, insofar as in reality, the WT and the ipatch are incompatible, because they both modify part of the script, and anyway a patch always changes code, whether directly in binary code, by substitution of files with modified ones (like in these cases), or by doing an automated search and replace in the code (in this case script).
To make them compatible, either I should use as base a version with the WT applied, or he would need to use as base a version with the ipatch applied.
Both solutions would then leave out people who do not have the WT applied (in my case) or that do not have the ipatch (in case of JokerLeader and the WT), or require the creation of multiple versions of the patches, and create delays for the availablity of one or the other patch/mod.
Sorry about that, but if one looks in the readme for the ipatch, I always clearly said it is tested and compatible for sure only with the bibfoc savename modification, and his modification to allow changing the name of the characters (but that, because he asked me to put in something specific), and it is known not to be compatible with the WT.
Next ipatch (I will certainly still do it), I will try to modify also the text of the post with the ipatch link, so it is clearly even there that it is not compatible with the WT.