User talk:Shambala108/Archive 15

If you need to leave a message here on my talk page, please follow a couple of guidelines: --
 * Please don't forget to sign your posts. Like most admins, I won't answer any post that doesn't have a signature.
 * Also, if you are starting a new topic, please add a new heading.

T:NPA
Hi Shambala, I saw your recent post in Thread:260549 and noticed it seems to contain an inaccuracy. You said “on this wiki, it is up to the admins to decide matters of ... personal attacks”, whereas the actual policy on T:NPA specifies that “If you are personally attacked, you should ask the attacker to stop and note this policy”, and it is only if the attacks continue that you should “contact an Administrator and clearly state the problem” so that “the admin will evaluate the situation and attempt to mediate the issue.” Unless I’m severely misunderstanding the letter of the law, this means that personal attacks are not decided by the admins but by the attacked person, and it is only at their request that admins should get involved. This is standard policy across many wikis.

I hope you’re well! – N8  ( ☎ / 👁️ ) 17:36, January 9, 2020 (UTC)


 * When you get the chance, could you let me know if my reading of this is correct? If this is a place where the policy-as-written is out-of-date or wrong, it would be very useful to get it clarified. – N8  ( ☎ / 👁️ ) 15:43, January 11, 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! In answer to your "Hopefully," if I had to pick between Universe A where admins protect me from being accused of violating T:NPA, and Universe B where my statements of personal offense are respected by all parties regardless of admin approval, I would vastly better prefer Universe B. But it seems that the policy maintains a tidy balance between the two. Cheers! – N8  ( ☎ / 👁️ ) 16:05, January 13, 2020 (UTC)

User pages reply
Can I ask why this request is being made. To my mind, the "conjecture" tag is being used for its intended purpose. BananaClownMan ☎  17:44, January 10, 2020 (UTC)

Vworping
Isn't the present tense of a verb also useable as a noun? If there is no page shouldn't this redirect to a section about the use of the verb?

TBH it was something I was unaware of til I watched with closed captions closely to Spyfall, but then to find out it is the namesake of Vworp Vworp! in 2010 makes me feel very ignorant for the last decade. talk2ty 16:08, January 11, 2020 (UTC)

Discussion policy
Hi there. I must confess your post on Thread:260549 citing Tardis:Discussion policy to me left me a bit confused. I might just be being an idiot but I'm honestly not sure how to stay on-topic to the thread by addressing User:Amorkuz's concerns when both of his most recent posts seem to be in direct violation of Tardis:Spoiler policy which is in turn cited at T:DISCUSS. It would be much appreciated if you could enlighten me as there are clearly things I do not know yet. Pleasure speaking to you as always and thanks in advance. --Borisashton ☎  22:20, January 11, 2020 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate the sentiment of your reason for removing my last comment but I wonder if it was helpful to Amorkuz. If Amorkuz didn't see SOTO's message, as I assumed since SOTO's was the immediately preceding post, then I feel like I was in fact helping Amorkuz so he could edit or remove his response addressing Eloquence. As an admin, would you mind posting a message to that effect to clear up any confusion? Thanks, --Borisashton ☎  01:24, January 12, 2020 (UTC)

RE:Talk pages
Hi. Okay, will do. Thanks. --DCLM ☎  08:32, January 13, 2020 (UTC)

Plot summaries vs. character biographies
Considering the thread was sparked by your own post in the "To-do list" on the Forums, I invite you to please weigh in at Thread:264489 whenever you find the time. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  12:12, January 13, 2020 (UTC)

1.3 HTML tidying
Hi

Tried posting the link below on facebook as a friend gad mentioned watching Carnival of Monsters. But comes up with a 404 error. Suspect it might be the exclamation mark within the URL.

https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Coming!

Vanishing infobox
The issue is resolved now, but at the time it wasn't displaying any variables, just the name itself. It seems to have had something to do with the spaces, which might have been non-breaking spaces (or something similar), that MediaWiki just won't recognise. I replaced the spaces between the variable names and the equal signs manually in this edit, and all the information popped up again. 05:24, January 19, 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was very, very strange. Now we know what to do if it crops up again, though. :) 05:45, January 19, 2020 (UTC)

Admin nomination
Hello. As of my time of writing, you're the admin to have edited a page. This message is a request to make a thread/announcement that I've put myself foward for Admin nomination, like there was for the last time there was a nomination. Also, I'd very much look foward to your comments on the matter, of course. Anyway, thank you in advance OncomingStorm12th ☎  01:26, January 22, 2020 (UTC)

Howling
Hey. Could I ask you to revisit this page. I've added some new information and would like your opinion on it. Thanks --DCLM ☎  08:46, January 23, 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry do you have an issue with my images, they are real they were taken in April 1983 at Longleat House, they are my property to publish.

Yours ThetaSigma1564

Gereld/Gerard Carey
Hi Shambala, just wanted to direct your attention to two pages which I think need sorting. I was going to put a message on the 'talk page', but I thought it would be quicker to write hear so it has your attention.

In the Torchwood TV story Meat, there is character named Greg who is portrayed by an actor credited by Gereld Carey. In From Out of the Rain, there is a character named Greg who is portrayed by an actor credited by Gerard Carey.

After having done some research, 'Meat' actually credits the actor as 'Gerard Carey' and not 'Gereld Carey'. Also, there was no such character named 'Greg' in 'From Out of the Rain', and is probably just a credits mistake.

I was just wondering if we would be able to delete the page known as Gereld Carey (since this name is never used in any credit), change the role on the 'Gerard Carey' page, and put a note in the page for 'From Out of the Rain' which states that the character has been 'double-credited'. Sorry if this is all really confusing - it took me a few moments to establish what was going on! I would have done this all myself, but wanted to confirm with you first. I am more than happy to make the changes, but just wanted your opinion first. Thanks again! Lay ton  4  - 22:09, 28/1/2020

Linking
Hello,

I have made a box to link to other wiki's of popular tv series. Would you like to place it on your main page so we can direct people to each others wiki's?

Gilmore Girls ☆ Married with Children ☆ Nurses ☆ Planet of the Apes ☆ Relic Hunter ☆ Saint Nicholas and Black Pete ☆ Star Trek ☆ Sweet Valley High

Thank you.

Regards,

PowerWikiNL

Violent behavior
Hey Shambala. Could you please take a moment to look into User:86.12.165.34. Their behaviour on the Wikia is highly inappropriate and they have even launched a personal attack on me. It would be appreciated. Thanks. --DCLM ☎  12:47, February 5, 2020 (UTC)
 * Another user, User:Unbanned reality talk, is refusing to abide by the rules of the Wikia too, and seem to be leaning towards hatred towards a certain area of society. --DCLM ☎  13:54, February 5, 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, this is Shambala. I would just like to say how dare you? How dare you question User:86.12.165.34? She is a great contributor to this wiki, as well as really cute and cool and funny and intelligent. You may show yourself out. Thanks for the tip on User:Unbanned reality talk though, will ban them soon.
 * That first bit is a joke right? --DCLM ☎  14:47, February 5, 2020 (UTC)
 * The shoe is on the other foot. Dissident Prodigy ☎  02:28, February 6, 2020 (UTC)

No. It’s real. Get off my talk page.
 * Stop pretending to be Shambala108. You are an unregistered Wikia contributor. Actually I think it's illegal to pretend to be someone else. I HAVE seen who is writing these messages, don't pretend. --DCLM ☎  14:54, February 5, 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Shambala. No need for action anyway, as User:Tangerineduel was quick to step in and deal with the situation. Including the person pretending to be you just above. --DCLM ☎  16:27, February 5, 2020 (UTC)

Based on the above conversation, their edit histories, and User talk:213.123.3.40, I think it's quite likely that 213.123.3.40 (now banned) is the same user as 86.12.165.34, who was temporarily banned in 2018 but is now still unbanned. – N8  ( ☎ / 👁️ ) 20:19, February 5, 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that is correct. "213.123.3.40" was banned for sock-puppetry. And I think there was somewhere else where they explicitly stated they were the same. --DCLM ☎  20:41, February 5, 2020 (UTC)

Just FYI, since you banned them
User:Dissident Prodigy appears to be a sock puppet User:Unbanned reality talk. The former was created suspiciously quickly after the latter was banned, the names are vaguely similar, and the former’s only contributions are removing messages insulting the latter from his talk page (including that one message about mentioning logical fallacies by name being ‘reddit-tier arguing’, which, if you look at the history, the latter kept trying to remove - obviously it hit too close to home), as well as a supsicious cryptic comment about the ‘shoe [being] on the other foot’ on this very talk page. Probably something you should look into. 82.132.220.11talk to me 13:03, February 6, 2020 (UTC)

Continued obstruction of the Wikia
Hi Shambala. I was wondering if you could take action against User:120.20.195.104? They are obstructing the work on the Wikia because of bitterness at being corrected on the S12 page. Specifically my work. And thus preventing the Wikia from properly working. --DCLM ☎  12:01, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
 * Aw, shucks. Respond to the talk page. 120.20.195.104talk to me 12:03, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
 * And further they're also actively attempting to engage me to continue an argument that I ended because I can't keep debunking the same over and over. Simply look at the obstruction they are doing. --DCLM ☎  12:08, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
 * Can't debunk the fact that the  . Nice. Thanks for admitting that. Goddamned Danish people, can't even speak English. 120.20.195.104talk to me 12:09, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
 * The evidence speaks for itself. Spoiling facts on other pages and personal attacks too. --DCLM ☎  12:12, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
 * How's it a spoiler when the Series 12 article literally includes this information? Go remove it then.  . Fuck sake. 120.20.195.104talk to me 12:13, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
 * Tardis:Spoiler policy. Go read it. --DCLM ☎  12:14, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
 *  Go add it. 120.20.195.104talk to me 12:16, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
 * Never mind. User:Tangerineduel took care of it. Thanks anyway. --DCLM ☎  13:17, February 9, 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to say thank you for this, even though it was mostly removal of the spoilery content. --DCLM ☎  15:14, February 9, 2020 (UTC)

Images
Hey there. Can you point me in the direction of the policy you cited at Talk:The Doctor in popular culture and mythology? I remember reading it but after a quick look I was unable to find it. Thanks in advance for the help, --Borisashton ☎  23:59, February 14, 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. As the "one image per section" rule is actually a guideline would you be opposed to me re-adding a few images to some of the sections; perhaps three or four in As a real person and one in Reputation as a renegade? One reason for this is wall-of-text syndrome. Certainly in the first example, you go a long time without anything but paragraphs of text.


 * Secondly, and more crucially I think, the article is unique at this stage in its existence. Although I plan to create more, the type of article The Doctor in popular culture and mythology tries to be is one of a kind. It is not like previously cited examples like the Master or Doctor pages where the vast amount of images stems from massive biographies. Instead, the article focuses in on the impact of the Doctor on the world, mostly, but not limited to their varied depiction in visual media. I believe images such as File:Doctor Ten at Trafalgar Square.jpg and File:Nine waves.jpg are vital to understanding the content of the article, that being the various portrayals of the Doctor within the DWU. Sure, we as wiki editors/readers know the fugitive Tenth Doctor in File:Newsreader sound of drums.jpg is the same as the Olympic Torch bearer in File:Tenth Doctor main14.jpg but from an in-universe perspective it wouldn't be outrageous to think these two men just looked alike. In short, I feel so much is lost by removing all of these images and it would be doing the wiki and its readers a disservice to pick just one and not give comparisons to these portrayals. Thanks for reading, --Borisashton ☎  00:56, February 15, 2020 (UTC)
 * Since User:BananaClownMan has now expressed confusion/dislike (I don't know, I couldn't find their block appeal so a link would be helpful) of this guideline a reply to this query would be helpful if you have the time. The "problem" has become consdiderably more dire since I last wrote. Thanks again, --Borisashton ☎  01:23, March 22, 2020 (UTC)

A Stitch in Time
Dear Shambala108,

On the page A Stitch In Time (CC Story)), it seems the editor seemingly misplaced a picture with a Comic Cover of Episode 2. I don’t think this is vandalism. It’s probably just a mistake by the editor of the article.

Doctor pages
Hey, it's all cool. I noticed that you had restored the info and them went a bit without moving forward on deleting the others, so I assumed something of the sort had happened. :) OncomingStorm12th (talk) 00:36, February 27, 2020 (UTC)

Research on Fandom Wikia
Hi, I am conducting research on user activity on fandom wikia. I am trying to get responses from as many people from the fandom community as possible so is there a way to spread this survey as much as possible. The survey is quick and completely confidential and it would be extremely helpful if you could take the time to fill it out through the attached link below.

https://forms.gle/roCGKYfavnrVDjDZ6

Thank you so much!

RobinZoro ☎  20:34, February 27, 2020 (UTC)RobinZoro

Morbius Doctors
I have left an answer to your message at Talk:The Doctor (The Brain of Morbius) about which I'd quite like your opinion. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  10:53, March 1, 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks
I'll ask you to avoid making personal attacks. It's very unprofessional of you as an admin, constantly asserting bad faith. It makes it really hard for the wiki to feel like a safe place to be. :/// OS25🤙☎️ 01:03, March 2, 2020 (UTC)


 * It's utterly unprofessional of you to attack my character in a forum, or to belittle any stance I choose based on your opinions of me. Sorry to say it, but I think you shouldn't attack a user as an admin, I think it breaks policies and you could strive to be better. ://////// OS25🤙☎️ 02:34, March 2, 2020 (UTC)

Response ping
Hi Shambala108, just wanted to give you a ping that I've responded on User talk:OttselSpy25. – N8  ( ☎ / 👁️ ) 13:16, March 4, 2020 (UTC)

The Old Man and the Teenage Girl
I would respectfully disagree that those redirects are "unlikely to be searched for". We can't have the pages be named Iphigenia (Beige Planet Mars) and Forty-second Doctor, because those identities were given off-page in reference material; but these identities are clearly the main reason a fan would want to check out the pages. There exist rumors of Parkin's deleted 42nd Doctor from The Dying Days at least, and it is very easy to picture someone typing "Forty-second Doctor" in the search bar, finding nothing, and assuming we have no record of this character all on the Wiki, when in fact we do, just under the name of Old man (Beige Planet Mars) because the character's name hasn't been confirmed in a valid source. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  21:15, March 15, 2020 (UTC)

6.3 Changed category
I am sorry, but I don't understand why Dalek is not an specie.

Thanks.

邢家朋 ☎  03:42, March 17, 2020 (UTC)

6.3 Changed category
Thanks!邢家朋 ☎  03:53, March 17, 2020 (UTC)

Coverage and/or validity of dubs
Hi! Thought you'd like to know that User:WaltK has opened a Panopticon thread concerning how best to cover information original to the Portuguese dub of The Ghost Monument on the Wiki. Since, some time back, you deleted the page Palmirinha because it was based on information from a dub (deleted, mind you, not tagged as invalid, which I think is a bit peculiar) I assume you must have some opinions on the subject, which I think everyone on the thread would be interested to hear exposed at more length than you could in the necessarily-brief deletion rationale of Palmirinha. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  18:40, March 19, 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't demanding anything, quickly or otherwise, sorry if I came across that way. Take your time!--Scrooge MacDuck ☎  01:56, March 20, 2020 (UTC)

RE:admins
Actually I was about to inform User:SOTO about having told them multiple times without luck. I wrote to SOTO's talk page at the same time as you wrote to me on MY talk page. --DCLM ☎  22:55, March 26, 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a note. User:Connorguy was one of the users who kept enforcing the speculative content, even though he was not the one who "created" it. --DCLM ☎  23:26, March 26, 2020 (UTC)
 * Another unrelated and repentant note seeing the above: I fully admit, in light of the above kerfuffle, that I kept arguing with User:BananaClownMan for too long over edit summaries at The Doctor's saviour earlier today before I realised we weren't getting anywhere productive, at which point I finally had the sense to drop a message on BCM's talk page. I think the object-level issue's solved now, and no personal attacks were endured on either side of the conversation, but I felt it only fair to mention to you that 1) it happened, and 2) I realised I was in the wrong. (About my method of going about the editing, I mean; about the object-level issue, I was correct, as BCM appears to have eventually agreed. But that's not really either here or there.)--Scrooge MacDuck ☎  23:34, March 26, 2020 (UTC)
 * Meh. Water under the bridge. (Pun not intended). I'm just glad we were able to find a common ground in the end. ;D BananaClownMan ☎  23:48, March 26, 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't edit warring. Several users posted certain information but it kept being removed, I ensured that the information (which would have been readded by another anyway) remained and advised the offending user to strike up a discussion. Thanks. Xx-connor-xX ☎  00:22, March 27, 2020 (UTC)

User names
I remembered my old password, and the new account wont be used. Xx-connor-xX ☎  00:28, March 27, 2020 (UTC)

Untitled stories
Hi there, I hope you are well during these uncertain times. Today I discovered that the wiki has a policy called T:NO TITLE which mandates what to do when part of a series does not have a clear title. It dictates that stories should be given an exact acronym of their overall series name.

I come to you because I remembered a forum thread we had on what to call a multitude of untitled stories a while back. On that occasion you ruled that it was a case-by-case basis and should be brought to the talk pages of the stories individually. If you have time I would greatly appreciate if you took a look at Thread:213849 which suggests a bunch of renames, the vast majority of which would seemingly conform to this policy. Thanks in advance, --Borisashton ☎  00:23, March 28, 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, take all the time you need! --Borisashton ☎  01:23, March 28, 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of the examples in the forum post come from untitled Doctor Who segments of largely non-DWU television series. For example, Blue Peter, and The Lenny Henry Show to name a few. There are also more dubious examples such as Comic Relief 2007 (TV story) being an untitled segment in the 2007 Comic Relief telethon. I hope this helps, --Borisashton  ☎  23:35, April 17, 2020 (UTC)

Mark Barton Hill
Hi please reinstate my blog form Mark Barton Hill created in SHADA 2017. I took a great deal of time to fill this out for you and it's showing that Shambala108 deleted it. WHY? it was great and needs to be on your website.

reinstate my bio please
Please may I reinstate my page about Mark Barton Hill on Doctor Who SHADA credit - with out you erasing it again. I am he and wish to repost the photos and bio I did last night. please. thanks Mark

Dalek Alphabet
Your rename template on Dalek Alphabet is unwarranted. The source, UNIT Initiation Test, capitalises it this way. It's emphatically referred to as "The Dalek Alphabet", not "the Dalek alphabet". --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  23:09, March 30, 2020 (UTC)

Chibnall vandalism
The Chibnall page is being vandalised and the vandal is removing all edits that remove the vandalism he's not using an account but using the IP 84.102.151.57, I have tried to remove them myself in sections to stop him from undoing them but it didn't work GarfielfStuff ☎  18:11, March 31, 2020 (UTC)

Images
Hi, recently I edited the page for Cleopatra by adding a more accurate image from the cover of an Erimem book, and you disregarded it on the grounds that images should be from in-universe. Last I checked, Erimem is considered part of the Whoniverse, so the image I used was in-universe, so why was a valid image discarded?

As a side note, this wiki holds Erimem and Doctor Who onine stories as equally valid sources. Epsilon the Eternal ☎  02:48, April 3, 2020 (UTC)

Doctor Who Answers closed
Doctor Who Answers has been closed. The new website will go up at http://www.doctorwhoanswers.com/, but right now it's not quite ready because they've not had enough spare time to sink into it. Doctor 25 ☎  20:12, April 11, 2020 (UTC)

Category
Hi, so I noticed that you recently deleted the category I created and linked to naming conventions, but I'm not sure what I did wrong? Was the "I" not supposed to be capitalized? Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎  22:58, April 12, 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, I'd like to profusely apologize for accidentally using the wrong pronouns in another talk page. I hope you can forgive me for being stupid.Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎  23:10, April 16, 2020 (UTC)

Check on
Hello, User:Shambala108. I just wanted to stop by and check how you were doing in these trying times of self-isolation?BananaClownMan ☎  09:52, April 16, 2020 (UTC)

Question
Is caretaker the admin or owner role? GarfielfStuff ☎  03:45, April 19, 2020 (UTC)

Hi hope you are well. User 73.178.136.129 is constantly vandalising the Dian Perry and another page by inserting something uneelated to doxtor who

Pictures issue
I wasn't sure who would know best but I'm sure you've kindly helped the Welsh Wiki in the past. As I've got a hardware update, I've returned back to the Welsh Wiki, but the one problem I'm having is that the Wiki won't let me upload pictures to the picture database. I'm not sure why but it just offers up a red message. I wondered whether you could test it for yourself and see whether it's just me or everyone.

Also, who would I ask for the Welsh Wiki to look a little more like the prime Wiki, i.e. dark navy blue and gold layout? Thanks for all help. The Farty  Doctor   Talk  15:27, April 19, 2020 (UTC)

And the shepherd’s pie says...
Now, I saw you revered my edit on Shepherd, removing some speculation that Tree Lorn Acre Slitheen-Blathereen was ‘mistaken’ in her belief that Shepherd's pie contained meat from actual Shepherds. How do we know this ISN’T the case? In the DWU, I mean. We can’t assume that everything in the DWU is the same as in real life. We need in-universe evidence that no shepherds are harmed in the making of the pie, or we can’t presume so. NightmareofEden ☎  01:35, April 25, 2020 (UTC)

DWBIT in Tardis:Valid sources
Uh… Shambala, your point that we should take into account the whole of Tardis:Valid sources when determining validity is well-taken, but the specific Battles in Time situation seems counterintuitive to me, if the part of the policy you're citing to close the debate is literally "Tardis:Valid sources specifically mentions Battles in Time as being invalid". Obviously, if an inclusion debate is reopened about something thus far considered invalid, then it's part of current policy that the thing is invalid.

Panopticon threads are allowed to change policy if consensus is reached that it should be changed, are they not? This seems like a very obvious instance that this was the case. OP's point was clearly that, whether or not that information had ended up referenced in the very text of Tardis:Valid sources, there had been an error in the original handling of the DWBIT stories, in that they had mistakenly been assumed to fail Rule 1 and to be akin to information on the packaging of merchandise, which they were not. They were surely mentioned on T:VS as invalid as examples of thusly failing Rule 1, not as part of some weird, separate, BIT-specific exception? --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  11:16, April 25, 2020 (UTC)
 * Would very much appreciate an answer on this whenever. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  14:20, May 9, 2020 (UTC)

Parody = NOTVALID?
There is precedent for counting self-parodies as valid. See Voice from the Vortex! and A Mutual Friend, just to name two of many! OK, the second of these is more a loving pastiche, but the first is absolutely a (rather mean-spirited) parody. NightmareofEden ☎  02:56, April 27, 2020 (UTC)

Audio cast stubs
Hi, I wonder if you can help me in regard to User:DJAitch who continues to add Category:Audio cast stubs to articles in lieu of, even after multiple talk page messages from myself and User:OncomingStorm12th asking him politely to stop. I wouldn't want any blocks to be imposed on him as his contributions are obviously well-meaning but I admit I'm unsure how to proceed. Thanks, --Borisashton ☎  11:17, April 28, 2020 (UTC)

What?
Why did you delete The Doctor (pig) with the reason ‘no need for a page on a non-existent character’? We literally have Category:Non-existent individuals. Are you telling me every page in that category should be deleted? NightmareofEden ☎  05:51, May 4, 2020 (UTC)

Hi me again :). Ojo 123 is editing pages Dian Perry and Loriel.King referencing 64 zoo lane. May be the same person I messaged you about before on a new account

Please make a new section instead of piggybacking upon my message. But, hey, two can play at that game! User:ClemWasLoomed is adding memes to the wiki- and not even funny ones, worse still! NightmareofEden ☎  13:55, May 5, 2020 (UTC)

Hello!
Hello. I feel as though I have never fit in with this community, and, seeing as Amorkuz got away with so much more than uttering the word “spite”, which LilPotato was banned for using (??????), I can see you like to pick favorites.

He is not one of them.

I wish you luck with destroying a wiki that I regrettably lost interest in using the minute you:

1. Insinuated he never addressed or even read through the very quotes he acknowledged and brought to light,

2. Said that (Jesus Christ) you never read the original post or subsequent posts due to “too many colors, muh brain hurty”,

3. Believed that the “sequel stories to invalid whatsits” thread had already been figured out and used that to pounce at the opportunity to be a bad admin, and

4. Admitted that “validity”… is just rebranded “canon”? I know you always thought of it as “what mattered” rather than “what counted” but I never thought you’d outright say it!

So please, ban me. I think I have made my point clear, and I wish for you to change, but I also wish for a million dollars. Neither will happen unless I take initiative and get myself banned. Just stop while you're behind NoNotTheMemes ☎  06:19, May 8, 2020 (UTC)


 * I mean, I don't want to address the rest of this comment. But if you're closing the thread by saying "we take author/publisher comments about their own work as part of determining whether a work passes rule #4", citing a thread and some quotes in that thread, but fail to address how in the thread you're actually closing it attempts to rebut these interpretations of the quotes, I mean, that's just incredibly damning. Literally nobody even attempted to rebut these new readings of the quotes in the thread. It is impossible, in principle, to consider the thread closed adequately without addressing the attempt at a reinterpretation. I'm going to assume charitably that you just failed to read the section titled "Why this story passes Rule 4", for understandable concerns about various shades of text on various backgrounds. I get it. But this section directly addresses the quotes you suggested people read, and explains how they aren't actually disqualifying statements.
 * I understand why you might not have, but given that these things actually were addressed, you should either reopen the thread (if possible) and respond, allowing someone else to close it when discussion moves to its conclusion, respond in how you close the argument, explaining why this reinterpretation is false, or agree and change the validity of DCTT. Najawin ☎  07:58, May 8, 2020 (UTC)

I don't really want to get involved in the above argument, but I'm not sure where else to post comments regarding the discussion's closure (I accidentally commented on the discussion thread not realising it has been closed). Anyway, I don't think it's fair to say "even back in 2012 the ideas of validity were there, even though the terminology hadn't been finalized yet".

The whole reason that the work was deemed invalid was because the Doctor's death didn't line up with the Eight Doctor's survival in other media. That is very clearly regarding canon of the show, rather than validity in its own right. How can this work be considered invalid because it features a Doctor dying when another source portrays him as surviving? Its exactly the same as the recent Doctor Who and the Time War (short story) which shows the Eighth Doctor regenerating directly into the Ninth instead of the more universally accepted War Doctor. Xx-connor-xX ☎  09:13, May 8, 2020 (UTC)


 * I also don't really want to involve myself with the comments of others, but I do hereby request that you reopen the thread for more comments. You write "if At Childhood's End (novel) is the only "new" evidence proposed, then there is no change in the validity of Death Comes to Time (webcast)". That's great but in no way was that story the only new evidence proposed, it merely served as something that gave the thread a current relevance instead of it being a spontaneous reopening of a past discussion.


 * You also suggest reading the quotes posted by User:CzechOut but the opening post did post quotes from the original debate by CzechOut as well as people involved in the production of the story. If you did not read the opening post, as you implied, then you had no right to close the debate on account of the fraction of the evidence included in the "summary" you requested.


 * Everybody that had contributed to the thread so far had agreed with validity. If you disagree considering all the evidence why not express your concerns on the thread so some good ol' scrutiny can take place. I'd welcome that but as it stands your reasons for closing the thread make little sense and it should probably be reopened if not by you, by somebody else on the basis of the first sentence which is just not the case. Thanks for your time, --Borisashton ☎  09:32, May 8, 2020 (UTC)

About that DCtT closure
Hello! I've followed the DCtT thread, as you know from my moderate participation in it. While you were very kind to add a second closing post to it to attempt to address people's criticisms, I'm afraid that it's rather confused the issue. As I attempted to point out in my perhaps-flawed summary, At Childhood's End was the procedurally-required "new evidence" that meant the thread was not breaking T:BOUND; but it was not the main gist of the new argument for validity.

The real argument was that the quote used in the original debate to claim that the author/publisher of Death Comes to Time didn't mean for it to take place in the DWU had been misinterpreted. They'd said "maybe it's canon, maybe it's not". "[I]f you want to accept it as canon, you can. or not. Whatever you prefer."

- Nev Fountain Which, for one thing, is open-ended in a way that does allow for it to be "canon", so why shouldn't we as a Wiki err on the side of validity, if the author thinks that it's a possible reading and it helps us cover it more sensibly? (And what the references in At Childhood's End and other valid sources demonstrate is that it would be easier than not for the Wiki to acknowledge DCtT as valid.)

But also and more importantly: the underlying ideas that would come together in Tardis:Valid sources might already have existed, but at the time of the original debate, the Wiki had yet to acknowledge that canonicity and validity are two different things (and we only care about the latter). Meaning there is nothing stopping a story from being non-canonical, but DWU. Back when the Wiki threw the word "canon" willy-nilly to mean what we now call "valid", it was understandable for confusion to arise. But now that we don't care about "canon", why should we give a fig about whether an author said that their story was canon or not? What matters is whether they meant for the story to take place in the universe of An Unearthly Child.

…At the very least, I think that's what User:LilPotato was getting at. I could be misunderstanding his argument. But whether he or myself came up with it, I think the above argument for why the old decision no longer makes sense is pretty damn convincing.

And I'm not saying you don't have a rationale why that pretty damn convincing argument doesn't cut it. But that rationale did not make it into your closing post, amidst all the procedural issues. And I do bear in mind Thread:221655's statement that not every point can or will be adressed in a thread closure. But… is it too much to ask that the closing post of an inclusion debate restate a clear, explicit justification for why the story under discussion is ruled invalid?

Again, I'm not arguing with your closure here. But I'd like to understand it. How can a quote from Nev Fountain saying "this story may or may not be canon" be enough, if we're being honest with the "validity isn't canon" principle, to rule that DCtT fails Rule 4? And even if a clear-cut "it's not canon" were somehow proof that a story failed Rule 4, why should the Wiki, when the quote is saying "it could be canon, or it could not be", choose to go with "not" even though it's doing tangible harm to the Wiki?

(Note: I realise that I've sent you quite a long message there, and I fully understand if you take some time in responding, though is a response I shall eagerly await.) --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  01:35, May 9, 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd go a bit further and say that it's impossible in principle to consider the issue adequately dealt with unless the reinterpretation of quotes by User:LilPotato is addressed. To refer us to a thread that was directly rebutted in the original post beggars belief. While Thread:221655 does note that "a closer [...] cannot [...] address every single point that's ever brought up in a thread", and it's right to do so, it's fair to expect the closing post to address one of the main thrusts of debate. And, moreover, it did address it. It just did so in a way that was inadequate, as it failed to actually address the contents of the thread, and referred people to a post that was, within the context of the discussion, effectively refuted, without any defense for that original post.


 * I think it's clear that the proper response is to reopen the thread and attempt to argue for why the original interpretation is correct. As things stand, nobody has been given an opportunity to actually argue the point over whether the original interpretation is correct with someone who thinks so. LilPotato provided at least a moderately compelling argument as to why not, people agreed, and then someone who disagreed told us to read the original thread that was addressed by LilPotato and closed the thread. Najawin ☎  01:44, May 9, 2020 (UTC)


 * I will second a reopening of the thread. As I understand it, your statement that "if At Childhood's End (novel) is the only "new" evidence proposed, then there is no change in the validity" still stands. By this measure, a new thread on Death Comes to Time could be opened immediately because that statement is still untrue as I explained above. In any event, a proper explanation for why the story is invalid is direly needed. Thanks again, --Borisashton ☎  13:05, May 9, 2020 (UTC)

The IW image
My apologies for not abiding by the image guidelines. I hope, now that I have properly looked over the rules for uploading images, that it meets the criteria. LilPotato ☎  04:42, May 10, 2020 (UTC)

Re: Discussions
Hi Shambala, I must completely disagree with the comment you have left on my page.

Scrooge has not listened to that story, as if he did he would know that it was confirmed outright that the Osgood that survived was human. How is that different from you suggesting that I hadn't listened to a certain story a few years back? Xx-connor-xX ☎  22:23, May 10, 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, a side note, I don't appreciate you making a false comment about me ("@User:Xx-connor-xX, no one has accused Scrooge MacDuck of "butting in", those were his words") and then removing my reply when I attempted to clear up the confusion, you misread my comment. Xx-connor-xX ☎  22:26, May 10, 2020 (UTC)

T:NPA and Xx-connor-xX
Just as I was typing a version of the present message, I was notified of your edit at User talk:Xx-connor-xX. You are very kind — but though I do not mean to bedevil Xx-connor-xX, and don't personally believe he has committed any transgression serious enough to warrant any kind of lengthy bad, I would also like it to be on record that at Thread:272784, Xx-connor-xX accused my good-faith, and structured, attempt to reply to User:Epsilon the Eternal's questions about canon at Talk:The Zygon Isolation (webcast) of being "a long and rambling speech".

Not a dire insult to be sure, but, from where I'm standing, certainly a needless belittling of my person. Combined with the "clueless" comment you rightfully chided Connor for, it did leave a sore taste in my mouth.

Thank you for your time and your swift admin-work.

(P.S.: While I'm here, with regards to the matter of whether Thread:272784 should exist: I sincerely apologise for overstepping my bounds as to the thread's existence. But I was also arguing a purely factual point, unrelated to the thread's existence as such: the discussion started by User:Epsilon the Eternal was not, objectively speaking, any kind of formal inclusion debate, but rather an inquiry about "this Wiki's policies about canon". I was wrong to argue against the opening of the thread; but I do wish to set the record straight that I did not, or at least not knowingly, engage in a misplaced talk-page inclusion debate; I did not read Epsilon's post as an inclusion debate at all, and it is not as an inclusion debate that I replied to it.) --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  22:27, May 10, 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah — I see you have blocked Xx-connor-xX after all, and for a month, on the basis of other comments of his not directed at me. Well, that's that, I suppose. Thank you either way. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  22:34, May 10, 2020 (UTC)

Im Sorry
I tried to fix the List of future releases page but it won't fix im sorry. --EthanSmith12re ☎  3:29, PM, May 12, 2020 (UTC)

Gearar
Hi, just to let you know we've solved the rename problem in Gearon (The Perfect Prisoners) in that there was a error in the creation of the page by the original creator. Both the CD and audio credits correctly give this character's name as Gearar. So the page can be moved now as you are an admin as I've sorted out the links (apart from the one on this page). Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 18:00, May 13, 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 10:58, May 14, 2020 (UTC)

File move
Hi, can you please move the name of the file File:SS Suria Namasca.jpg to File:SS Surya Namaskar.jpg, which is the proper spelling according to Robert Valentine here? It's only used on Prominence-class luxury starship, so only the one link needs changing. Thank you for your time! Toqgers ☎  21:55, May 13, 2020 (UTC)

Adjectives and Articles
Hi Shambala, hope you're doing well. I'd like to politely disagree with the deletion of the page Genderfluid. The term itself isn't an adjective; it's an identity, like Time Lord and such. But, I will definitely agree the way that I wrote the page suggests it was an adjective, because I hadn't read the story and didn't know how it was defined as such in the DWU. Is there a way we can recreate the page without making the same mistake? Thanks. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎  13:28, May 18, 2020 (UTC)

2.4 Rewrite
Hi, you appear to have left me a message saying to stop changing Dr Who to the Doctor on the comic strips. I originally wrote an exact plotline for some comic strips using Dr Who because that's how they appeared in the strip. On a couple of my plotlines, someone else changed them from Dr Who to the Doctor. I was happy with either, and as I thought that's what was wanted, decided to change the others I had written up as well.

I'm new to all this and am still getting a feel for it. I would appreciate any advice you can give me.

Voice from the Vortex! (short story)
User:BananaClownMan has been repeatedly making incorrect edits to the page Rosie Taylor, placing her in the category "Non-DWU companions". i attempted to undo these changes - as Voice from the Vortex! is not considered to be invalid by this Wikia. eventually he went and changed Voice from the Vortex! to invalid himself, with no consensus or agreement apart from a tiny discussion on the talkpage which was never resolved. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎


 * With all due respect, I would like to point out that it was actually @Shambala108 herself who added the invalid template per the talk page as seen here. Snivy   ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦   12:15, May 26, 2020 (UTC)


 * Plus it still has the invalid tag, as it did when I added it to "Non-DWU short stories", as DiSoRiEnTeD1 made the argument it was moreso that than a parody, and I didn't have any evidence to the contrary.BananaClownMan ☎  12:19, May 26, 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry to jump in, but I'd also like to point out that User:DiSoRiEnTeD1 is the only user as far as I can tell to have exceeded the "3 reversion" limit at T:NO WARS and therefore they are the one to have acted against existing policy. This is understandable as they are a new user but I just felt as though the situation was being misrepresented. --Borisashton ☎  12:23, May 26, 2020 (UTC)
 * i did not exceed the "3 reversion" limit. the final edit i made was my third reversion, however another user added to the work i was reverting thus i had to revert both - but this counts as a single reversion in my eyes. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎


 * For reference, I think Borisashton is talking about the reversions you did here rather than an on the short story page. Snivy   ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦   12:56, May 26, 2020 (UTC)

i would just like to completely clear things up. Voice from the Vortex! (short story) was not correctly tagged. it only had the "invalid" tag, which i admittedly missed. it did not have the "Non-DWU short stories" tag. also, there seemed to be no resolution to the validity discussion on the talkpage. that is why i was adamant that it was valid. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎

Isn't this lovely and just what I want to see when I wake up - an argument on my talk page. Just to point out, Tardis:Edit wars are good for absolutely nothing says that an edit war occurs after 4 edits, not the 3 that User:Borisashton claimed. Shambala108 ☎  14:10, May 26, 2020 (UTC)


 * I knew this and thought I had communicated it, sorry if I wasn't clearer in my words. I meant that three reversions was the maximum number that policy allowed without it becoming an edit war. Hence, as I said above, to exceed that limit of 3 (or in other words to revert 4 times), would be violating policy. --Borisashton ☎  14:18, May 26, 2020 (UTC)

"Merge tag based on fallacy"?
I saw your edit at Rosie Taylor removing my merge tag and I must admit I'm rather confused. What is the "fallacy" to which I fell prey? I saw that you had provisionally ruled Voice from the Vortex! invalid — is that what this is about? I intend at some point to present a Voice from the Vortex! inclusion debate in the forums, but even if the story is invalid, surely that should be all the more reason to cover "Rosie Taylor" on the Behind the scenes section of "Rose Tyler". We don't have Ninth Doctor (Voice from the Vortex!) either, or, for that matter, Seventh Doctor (Dimensions in Time). So what gives? --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  14:32, May 27, 2020 (UTC)

New pages
Hello. I added categories to every page I made that I could. Some I could find no categories for and so I thought I'd leave it to others. I did consider asking an admin if they might know what categories might be good and will make sure to in the future. -- Saxon (✉️) 21:45, May 30, 2020 (UTC)

Why are you reverting these biography changes back to an earlier, very outdated version? What's the rationale? If my recommended changes have breached any rules or guidelines, please let me know and I'll ensure they are taken into consideration.

D-G Name Change
Hiya, I was putting the dates in for some of the BBC Executives for most of yesterday.

I suddenly found that Director-General John Burt should be spelled John Birt, check the links I've put in the article if you need further confirmation.

Also another less urgent point, I feel I've added images and info boxes to some of these Exec's in the past but they've now been removed, don't you want these? Vincent VG ☎  10:08, June 6, 2020 (UTC)

personal attacks
i feel like my comments, which are never intended to be personal attacks, are removed / flagged up far more than others. for example; User:Najawin has just made a completely unnecessary and offensive remark against a mistake i made; "anyone literate past high school English should know this" on the inclusion debate, but i can imagine that this will go completely unpunished. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  06:08, June 7, 2020 (UTC)


 * As a point of information, I did not interpret you as making this mistake, as I was responding to you talking about "most people". If so, I apologize. My point was just that latin cognates are covered in high school English. Najawin ☎  06:17, June 7, 2020 (UTC)
 * we both know exactly what you meant by the comment, that and all your other digs about how my suggestions are “absurd” or “pure lunacy”, but regardless this comment was not intending for you to get in trouble, merely wondering why my own comments get flagged far more frequently. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  06:20, June 7, 2020 (UTC)


 * That is a personal attack, according to our policy. Please assume good faith and not say that there is a hidden meaning behind one's words. Also, let it be known that I've seen more people banned due to your requests for consequences than I've seen you ever be reprimanded. I don't agree with your idea that you get disproportionately yelled at, but I don't keep up with Wiki drama other than the occasional glance at threads. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems more like a persecution complex rather than getting banned for, say, using the word "spite". Just my two cents. LilPotato ☎  06:27, June 7, 2020 (UTC)
 * I just said it was not a request for consequences - don’t put hidden meanings to my words. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  11:12, June 7, 2020 (UTC)

About the recent Monk thread
While it's certainly within your abilities to close a thread at any time if you feel the discussion isn't productive, and I understand you're not a fan of people spamming your talk page to point out that you didn't actually address the issues raised in the thread, like with the DCTT thread, this is another instance where this is the case. It's just blatantly false to say that "None of the arguments for validity were able to get around this fact [that we do not consider discarded stories to be valid]." The repeated argument for validity is that it's a framing device and so not actually a discarded novel, in analogy with Doctor Who and the Time War (short story), which, if you'll note on the official release also talks about being a discarded release multiple times. Again, I realize that closing posts are not required to address all arguments made in a thread, but to fail to address the entire point of discussion made by one side of the debate is simply unreasonable. Najawin ☎  02:29, June 10, 2020 (UTC)

Gallifreyanfrog
Can you please block this vandal for vandalizing the Vansell article? Thanks!-- Jamie248 [  T  •  C  •  E  • 📝 ] 15:28, June 11, 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for Help/ Still Learning
Hi user Shambala108, thank you for correcting my mistakes. I am still new to the wiki and still getting used to the format so I apologize for my excessive errors that seem to be cropping up. Hope you are well! DoctorQuoi ☎  22:57, June 13, 2020 (UTC)DoctorQuoi

Large merge/rename request
Hello, I hope you are well. I've come to you to fast-track a few merges and renames that are somewhat disruptive while they remain undone if that's okay. They all involve the three Time Lords from The War Games.

President (The Three Doctors) needs to be renamed Pandad IV and Second Time Lord (The War Games) needs to be renamed Adelphi. Then, Time Lord 1 (Colony in Space) and President (The Deadly Assassin) need to be merged into Pandad IV, Time Lord messenger and Time Lord 2 (Colony in Space) need to be merged into Adelphi, and Chancellor (The Three Doctors) needs to be merged into Socra.

If you aren't familiar with the sources in question and don't know how to integrate the info once the actual merge is complete I'd be happy to do that with the same going for the manual link changing required. Thanks, --Borisashton ☎  13:59, June 16, 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Shambala108! I'm from the TARDIS Wiki. I just wanted to ask if we could have a Discord server. Do you think that's a good idea? Please look into it. Sorry if I bothered you, and thanks. Yuvigician ☎  12:54, June 17, 2020 (UTC)Yuvigician

Re: Working on a page
I see, thank you very much for the suggestion, it will definitely be helpful for my next audio edit! Cheers! DoctorQuoi ☎  02:45, June 18, 2020 (UTC)DoctorQuoi

NPA complaint about User:DiSoRiEnTeD1
Hello! Sorry to impose on you, but I'm afraid I must register a complaint about User:DiSoRiEnTeD1 at Thread:273268, where it is claimed that people who disagreed with DiSoRiEnTeD1's earlier positions "prefer speculation rather than fact". (Okay, so to quote his exact words, DiSoRiEnTeD1 said we "perfect speculation than fact", but typos aside I struggle to see what else those words could be supposed to mean; please advise if you think there's a benign reading I'm missing.)

I don't see how we can be expected to have a reasonable, polite debate with these sorts of open accusations of bad faith flying about. I believe it falls under what the Wiki calls a personal attack, but even if it doesn't quite, I would appreciate your at least having a word with DiSoRiEnTeD1 on the matter.--Scrooge MacDuck ☎  16:23, June 18, 2020 (UTC)
 * how is suggesting that people are speculating assuming bad faith? people can have good intentions while also basing their opinions on pure speculation - which is what i believe you, and others, are doing. i did not single anyone out.


 * it genuinely feels like youre out to get me as youve just reverted a change i made accusing me of "making a massive discussion" without discussion. yet there was a discussion open for years and it was ignored, the few people who bothered to involve themselves agreed with me. is every discussion supposed to wait until the end of time if nobody is interested after the fact? DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  16:35, June 18, 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant to say you had made a massive decision; sorry if I switched out a wrong word. But yes, as a matter of fact, if there was an ongoing discussion, no matter how long ago, an admin has to close it decisively before action can be taken.


 * At any rate, though, if you have anything to say to me, you should say it on my talk page, not on Shambala108's talk page. That's not how this Wiki works.


 * Accusing us of "preferring speculation" is a very different thing from accusing us of allegedly accidentally using speculation as the basis of our reasonings. Everyone involved in the discussion is well aware that speculation isn't valid on this Wiki, so to accuse anyone involved in it of choosing speculation is to accuse them of intentional wrongdoing. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  16:40, June 18, 2020 (UTC)


 * you accused me of a bad faith edit publicly, instead of addressing me first on my talkpage. then you have the audacity to once again assume that i had bad faith in calling out your speculation (when i didnt even directly single you out!). i did not accuse you of anything, i said that certain people "preferred speculation" - as has been shown in the thread. this is not assuming bad faith or a personal attack.


 * and from now on i am only listening to instructions from admins and not backseat moderation, thanks. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  16:48, June 18, 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not accusing you of bad faith. I thought your edit to the Silurians LOA was a bad call, but absolutely not bad faith, just something I thought would bear community discussion on the talk page. Nor am I accusing you of having accused us of bad faith in bad faith. I said you had accused us of bad faith, and I do not see how claiming that we "prefer speculation to facts" can be anything else.


 * And I do not see how it is "backseat moderation" to register a complaint with an admin. I mean really now. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  16:51, June 18, 2020 (UTC)


 * if you can't see a simple comment of "preferring speculation" as anything other than a personal attack then i apologise. but it was obviously not meant in that way at all, and i genuinely feel that this is faux outrage to target me and have my opinion / side of the debate removed from the discussion so that you can get your own way. as such this will be my final comment here.


 * and obviously i meant that it was backseat moderation for you to tell me that i was commenting on the wrong talkpage, do not understand how that has been twisted into it being "backseat moderation to register a complain" but twisted it has been. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  17:01, June 18, 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, sorry, I didn't realise that was what you were referring to. But that wasn't even any kind of moderation, backseat or otherwise, just pointing out an inarguable fact of the usual mechanics of user-to-user discussions on this Wiki.


 * Nor am I trying to silence anyone. Note that my message to Shambala above includes what would, really, be the best scenario — an admin managing to get through to you on how wrong it is to accuse people of intentionally taking speculation over fact, and similar, so that you can accept that we are trying to have a reasonable debate where you should address people's arguments & objections at face value.--Scrooge MacDuck ☎  17:05, June 18, 2020 (UTC)


 * reasonable debate went out of the window when you stepped back and didnt address any of Najawin's provocative comments directed at me (one in which my mistake was commented on "anyone literate past high school English should know this"). however, i didn't accuse you of intentionally doing anything - i do believe, rather know, that a lot of your points are speculative. what i do not know, and have never commented on, is whether that is intentional or not...!


 * this is really my last comment.DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  17:13, June 18, 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: the reason I did not post anything about User:Najawin's potentially-attacking comments is that they were not directed at me and thus it was not especially my place to do so. If you want to register a complaint there (or have already done so), that is your prerogative, just as it mine to point out when your, or anyone else's, statements are accusing me of bad faith without evidence. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  17:21, June 18, 2020 (UTC)


 * once again i did not accuse you of bad faith and that accusation continues to be slander, and it is very hard to stick to my rule about no longer commenting when i'm being slandered - so can we leave it now? thanks! DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  17:28, June 18, 2020 (UTC)
 * You said that I (and others) preferred speculation to facts and had based our participation in the debate on that preference. As we know speculation is against the rules of this Wiki, saying we would do such a thing is accusing us of bad faith. I do not understand how you can say "[X, Y and Z] are fond of [breaking Rule W]", and then expect X, Y and Z not to take it as you saying that they are editing in bad faith. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  17:38, June 18, 2020 (UTC)
 * i have pointed out to you that you are speculating time and time again, but you do not take any notice. this means that you either believe you're not speculating or are intentionally breaking the rules. i choose to believe the former and, even though you prefer to force your own interpretations onto comments rather than take them at face value (which is still speculation), you do so unaware that you are speculating. how is that accusing you of bad faith? DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  17:45, June 18, 2020 (UTC)
 * If that is your position, that is indeed not an accusation of bad faith. However, it is far from the obvious reading of saying we "prefer speculation". Saying someone "prefers speculation" implies intentional malice. I obviously do not prefer speculation. It's just that we disagree on where the line lies between "speculation" and "basic second-degree reading comprehension".


 * In light of this, User:Shambala108, this whole meandering conversation yields that I should actually retract my earlier T:NPA complaint. I do however think you should have a word or two with DSoRiEnTeD1 on the subject of how talk pages work on this Wiki, since apparently he'll only believe an admin on the matter. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  17:52, June 18, 2020 (UTC)


 * thank you. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  17:56, June 18, 2020 (UTC)

Monk rename
would you be able to make a ruling on Thread:275671.

the discussion has been opened for nine days now and, as it hasn't had a reply in over a week, i truly believe that everyone involved in the discussion has exhausted their opinions (also that anyone that has ever shown an interest has commented by now).

until this discussion is settled it seems that Thread:273268 cannot progress as people keep covering the same ground with How The Monk Got His Habit (short story). DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  23:15, June 18, 2020 (UTC)
 * I would argue the opposite. It is Thread:273268 whose resolution would be useful in resolving Thread:273271. In practical terms, 273268 can always come to a conditional decision regarding the contentious story (if we keep it as its own entity, it would go there), whereas whether it's to be considered a part of Lockdown! is important to the discussion at 273271. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  23:21, June 18, 2020 (UTC)
 * i have all the faith that Shambala, like she did with the validity discussion, will take one look at the information already provided and realise that it is not an official release and should be merged with what it was stated to be (part of the novelisation). DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  23:23, June 18, 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe Shambala already ruled on whether we are covering this thing. She declared it invalid, instead of deleting/merging the page. We are arguing whether it is distinct enough from the hypothetical novelisation to be covered separately — but that's a question of coverage, not of the facts. The facts have already been decided upon (to neither of our personal satisfactions, but there we are).


 * Also, if you have any such replies addressed to me, please put them at User talk:Scrooge MacDuck. If you persist in not believing me that this is how it works on the Wiki (why ever not?…), at least do so when interacting with me, as a personal request. Please. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  23:29, June 18, 2020 (UTC)

The Lockdown! thread
Hi there. I'd like your verdict on what to do about Thread:273268, the Lockdown! thread. It reached 501 posts which is the maximum allowed on a single forum thread. These are truly unprecedented times. Would you advise the discussion be halted and a verdict be reached by an admin on the basis of the thread or should a new thread be opened to continue from where the first left off? Thanks in advance. --Borisashton ☎  18:13, June 19, 2020 (UTC)
 * And does T:BOUND affect this matter? --Borisashton ☎  18:16, June 19, 2020 (UTC)
 * i cant see that Thread:273268 progressing (if another thread is opened) until Thread:275671 is resolved so there's no point opening another thread just yet. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  18:27, June 19, 2020 (UTC)
 * As was stated by another user, there's strong reason to believe the converse is true. Of course, given that Thread:275671 has a massive unresolved argument (in the sense of someone advancing an argument for their position) in the center of it, it's not unrealistic to assume that someone, uninhibited by use of idioms, might also want to respond. So it seems wildly unfair to close that thread at this time regardless of whether that would be the case, as the unresolved argument would win by default. Najawin ☎  18:33, June 19, 2020 (UTC)

Re: Name-changing thread
Since the thread got locked, I wanted to come over and humbly apologise. I mostly just wanted to draw attention to that invalid Tom Baker page, as changing its title would make my current task of covering the Doctor Whoah! strips less stressful. I'm deeply sorry that I overstepping a boundary, and I meant no ill-will towards any mods or fellow contributors. WaltK ☎  19:47, June 19, 2020 (UTC)