User talk:Shambala108

Re: message
Sorry about the inconvenience. Emotions got the better of me. CoT    ?  01:09, February 26, 2017 (UTC)

NPA
To be clear, the "confused naysayer" comment was deliberately written in a way so as to avoid violating T:NPA, since it specifically avoids identifying any one person or group of people, and I frankly don't consider the words "confused" or "naysayer" to be insults. However, thank you for the warning, and I acknowledge my violation in this way.

However, I (as a user) would like to appeal you (as an admin) to edit T:NPA to make it more clear in this regard, particularly the examples given there, since I'm well familiar with the policy as written, but I didn't think the comment fell into category of insult. I'd just like to know an objective scale, since I've seen other users banned for what they thought weren't violations, and I'd hate to stumble into a similar scenario.

(None of the above is intended to be an attack on anyone, and I deeply apologize any unintended offense if taken by any reader.) NateBumber ☎  15:50, February 27, 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for those links! I read them both and found them pretty interesting, especially the discussion over User:Boblipton. I guess I was just confused about whether my comment fell under the "civil language used to describe an editor's actions" clause, since the word naysayer ("someone who opposes or is skeptical about something") has no negative or uncivil connotation to me. I moderate Reddit's two largest Doctor Who subreddits, with over a quarter of a million users, and I pretty heavily enforce the "don't be a dick" rule over there; I guess the rules here are just a lot harsher, and that's a problem with my expectations. In any case, I'm sure we can agree that my unfortunate phrasing was far from indicative of any negative "discussion habit" - though if you don't agree, please let me know, so I can change accordingly and avoid the fate of Bob and so many recent banees. Thanks again! NateBumber ☎  04:07, February 28, 2017 (UTC)

TARDIS (Hell Bent)
Hi. The merge/deletion tag has been up on TARDIS (Hell Bent) for just over one year (since January 21, 2016) and nothing has happened pertaining to the merge of this article into Clara's TARDIS. I would like to ask, why have you reverted my edits? I did not delete any information, I merely followed policy and redirected this article to the other one, keeping to the consensus established in the merge discussion. This issue has been unresolved for over one year, it's a bit crazy that it's gone on for this long. Regards. NickM98 ☎  04:22, February 28, 2017 (UTC)

Video policy
Hey Shambala108. I see you're now back after a (well deserved and needed, I'm sure) period of absence. I see that a new user has violated the Video policy, and that is has been dealt with. I know is pretty much common knowledge that only admins can upload videos here, but, at least to my view, it is a bit hard to get the idea from the policy page itself.

While there is a warning right on the top of the page, I believe it is something that is very easy to, unintentionally, miss (I must say I myself did not see it until the 5th or 6th time I stumbled across the page). Most, if not all of the text on the page is written as if regular users were permitted to upload videos by themselves (I imagine that it was written when everyone still could, and when the change was decided, no one edited the text).

Phrases such as "This means that you cannot upload a video about something which has not been officially released in its entirety", "but users who upload region-locked video will not be subject to punishment for doing so" and " If the video is allowed by policy, then you should upload and display it on the page" may give the impression that any user can still upload videos. If/when you have the time, it might be a good thing to take a new look on the entire text, replacing "you should upload" for "you should suggest the video at Tardis:Video recommendations", and stuff like that, so we diminish the amount of videos uploaded by users.

Anyway, glad to see you're back. :) OncomingStorm12th ☎  22:47, February 28, 2017 (UTC)

The doctor who years deletion
Can you please explain why the doctor who years page has been deleted so I can improve in future 95.147.32.223talk to me 22:29, March 11, 2017 (UTC)

Images
Could you explain why some of the images that I uploaded have been removed from pages? Like the ones from Zygon (webcast), Zygon and the Tenth Doctor (webcast), and The Doctor in 'The Return of Doctor Mysterio'. I believed I added the correct licences and followed the rules, but I'm not as familiarised with this wiki's policies than someone like yourself. --Borisashton ☎  19:18, March 14, 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this helps a lot. --Borisashton ☎  15:45, March 15, 2017 (UTC)

Uncredited Cast
Apologies about that - I think I've sorted it all out now. I just used the same reference link that was used on The Wedding of River Song story page for the uncredited cast. Thanks for the message. Cyruptsaram ☎  14:30, March 17, 2017 (UTC)

Matteusz
Hi, you removed Matteusz Andrzejewski from Category:Joyrider hosts. As an active contributor to the category, I'd like to keep it consistent. There is an ongoing dispute about the proper name for the category, so I thought you might be editing based on that dispute. At any rate, I'd appreciate if we could compare notes on this so that all unfortunate hosts are treated equally. To the best of my memory, his body was taken by Steve Hopley, who, technically, is not a client of Joyriders but an employee. Was this the reason? Amorkuz ☎  12:09, March 18, 2017 (UTC)


 * Now I understand. When the category was added originally, it was misspelled: Joyrider host instead of Joyrider hosts. Thanks for noticing. Amorkuz ☎  14:48, March 18, 2017 (UTC)

Re: Blitzen fish discussion
As far as I see things, there's no issue here. We both agree on the same things. Note, when I said "we" when referring to experienced users, I was talking about all of us, including yourself. Furthermore, when users (and I could name names) get excited on actual discussion threads in the forums and hastily try to close them down, I'm one of the first to say "let's leave it open for people to come along and have a say". I'm one of the first who reminds editors (new and old) that some forums stay open for years, they don't get resolved in a matter of days.

There's nothing to understand here because there's no issue. You have Amorkus who has listened to the audio in question. He provided me with the answer to my main question: is this event referred to in the audio? With that answer, there was no need to leave that discussion wide open. It's counter-productive. We also both agree that Wikis are editable. Anyone can come along with new or contrary evidence and change something. In fact, somebody did edit it seconds after I did. They changed the paragraph I wrote completely. And it was better haha. That's what great about Wikis. And if the edits aren't in line with the Tardis rules, it gets undone by others.

There's honestly no issue here. I just think you read my intention wrong in what I was saying. You're telling me what I already know. You're telling an experienced user the rules he already knows. Can we drop it? The Farty  Doctor   Talk  01:56, March 21, 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to re-edit my response for one simple reason, and that's so that nothing gets taken out of context. Thanks for coming along to the Blitzen fish talk page and helping us out. But I will remind you of one thing. One of the core rules on this Wiki is "assume good faith". When you see a comment online, you neither know the context nor the intent behind it. As an admin, you really should not have jumped at me the way you have- once over the time comment and another time from a simple line out of my response. From being a "chat moderator", you should know that people take offense wrongly all the time and it's your job to step in and enforce the "assume good faith" rule. You've not shown that here, and to be honest, I feel a bit taken aback (maybe even hounded) by it.


 * As far as I'm concerned, this needless discussion is over. If either of us should be offended, it should be myself. I'm the one who has had his words mangled on two occasions. But I'm not offended and I won't be contacting other admins over it. I'm not that sort of person. I contribute to the Wiki with any information that I've learnt and then I get on with my life. I've been here for almost a decade and I've abided with the rules. If, when you're "assuming good faith", you can't take that into account when working out if I'm being "offensive", then you may need to read up on the rule.


 * No offense is ever meant by anything I say, so if you take offense, I can't be held responsible for that. We live in an age where people take offense at everything, especially on the internet. And I'm not for any of that. Easy life is all I want. I won't be interacting with this conversation further because it's silly. Have a good day.
 * 14:58, March 21, 2017 (UTC)

2100
To be honest with you, I don't really remember why I would have tied this year into The Waters of Mars. It's been a half a decade. I looked again at all the terrible, terrible website graphics that are in that show today, and I couldn't find any reference to 2100 -- though I did manage to add a couple of new pages to the wiki. So it wasn't a total loss.

I am pretty sure it's claimed elsewhere, and not by one of my edits, that there is some connection between TWoM and 2100. But the truth is, the much stronger evidence for that whole "humanity starts colonising nearby star systems" thing is actually in Killing Ground, where it's pretty explicit. Grant comes from 2191 (as stated several times later in the book). The prologue says, "They were in the TARDIS, ninety-one years into Grant's past..." So: 2100.

Delete tag has been removed, but so, too, have all references to TWoM. Interestingly, though, Killing Ground is actually consistent with TWoM. You'd need lightspeed before colonisation -- and TWoM tells us that lightspeed comes in 2089, so it all kinda "fits together'. 03:30: Sat 01 Apr 2017

Closing an old thread
Hey, I know you admins have been getting these messages a lot lately, and I know it's kind of bad to keep asking these, but would you be able to give a look on Thread:204223 and, perhaps, close it? I think it's quite fair to said we were able to reach a consensus (that is, to removed the "UNIT" prefixes from the UNIT: The New Series boxsets. Even two admins agreed upon that matter (well, at the very least, User:SOTO said that this "would seem to be a natural extension of the "Doctor Who" decision."). Anyway, I believe that you are the only currently-active admin that hasn't posted on the thread, so it seemed correct to bring this to you. Thanks. OncomingStorm12th ☎  01:51, April 6, 2017 (UTC)

Military Officers/Personnel
Hey there, I had a small question, and was wondering if you could enlighten me: What is the difference between "Human military personnel" and "Human military officers"? It seems as though they are two very similar categories. Could they not be merged into one to avoid confusion? Regards, 22:39, April 10, 2017 (UTC)