User talk:Shambala108

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.

Block
Hi. Can I request that you take action on Zanda? They continually undo mine and Borisashton's edits, not wanting to follow the rules we multiple times have mentioned. And I think the Jeremy-account is simply a second account of his given on their first comment "I have read it". --DCLM ☎  15:37, August 11, 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright. It's just an assumption that I deem likely due to "Jeremy" only having 1 edit and with that, having said "I have read it". I'm raising the point of a block because they have been blocked in the past for 3 days with the promise of an earlier unblock if the message given alongside the block was understood. No answer was given. Sounds suspiciously like a "last resort"-kind of thing, should their main account be blocked, if you know what I mean. --DCLM ☎  15:50, August 11, 2019 (UTC)
 * Clever girl. Zanda21 ☎  16:05, August 11, 2019 (UTC)
 * Basically, you just confirmed my beliefs. And I'm not a girl, thanks. --DCLM ☎  16:06, August 11, 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a quote, you moron. Jesus. Of course you're not a girl. Women are actually clever, and not brain-dead. Zanda21 ☎  16:08, August 11, 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. You have now made multiple offenses on this Wikia. Shambala may not block people anymore, but others will undoubtedly. --DCLM ☎  16:14, August 11, 2019 (UTC)

Hi again. I trust you, it's just because you said you don't block people anymore, and I thought you wanted me to contact another admin for help. There was no mistrust. --DCLM ☎  16:29, August 11, 2019 (UTC)
 * And if it's not clear, I wanna say thank you for taking your time to bother with this situation. As I'm no admin, I appreciate that you set aside a probably otherwise full day to deal with this. --DCLM ☎  16:39, August 11, 2019 (UTC)

Block request
No worries. Thanks for stepping in. --Revan\Talk 16:51, August 11, 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! My name is Madeleine and I am an editor with the Pop Insider magazine. I am working on a piece about fans who create their own content and contribute to wikis like this. Would you be willing to answer a few questions for my piece? If you're interested, please email me at mbuckley@popinsider.com Thanks!

Davey Silverman
Per policy, an edit summary should "be descriptive of what you are changing, be it; adding additional content, removing significant content or altering the article." As such, your edit summary of "maybe it would have been better to actually search for this character before creating the page" is in violation of this, not being especially helpful. -- Saxon (✉️) 11:01, August 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a job I envy or intend to undertake but I think admins should be held to the rules just as much as any user and nor did your response actually address the issue. -- Saxon (✉️) 13:32, August 17, 2019 (UTC)

Last Great Time War
Ah, thank you! I had forgotten that that template existed. --Borisashton ☎  09:29, August 19, 2019 (UTC)

i dont know how to merge pages if you accept can you merge i was thinking merging 3 pages the weapon(eyeless) the greater key and the moment they are the same weapon and i have evidence code name greater key refers to the moments origins given in the comics the forgetten and donst step on the grass as a upgraded version of great key of rassilon and also in ahistory lance parkins equates the weapon seen in his novel the eyeless with the weapon mentioned in the end of time he also says that doctors people build the weapon for war against the enemy but they used in in the time war

Tuvalu
Here is the quote from Unnatural History: "'We've been travelling together for years,' said the Doctor. 'We stopped the smugglers of Nephelokokkugian and the Dalek invasion of Tuvalu.'" And he's speaking to Sam here. Doesn't give any details of Tuvalu, which is why I described it as just a "place" when modifying the text. Toqgers ☎  23:00, August 20, 2019 (UTC)

/* Courtesy */
That's fine, but it would be nicer to have the corrections explained rather than just being deleted with no explanation or "Format the links properly". It doesn't exactly make newcomers feel welcome, in fact, I doubt I will have the impetus to contribute again. Lezzman ☎  02:35, August 25, 2019 (UTC)

Peri Brown
Please be sure to address my comment on Talk:Peri Brown. -- Saxon (✉️) 21:38, August 25, 2019 (UTC)

Mistake from River Song
Hi, I was filling out the release details for River Song: Series six today but ran into a problem.

I hadn't read the title's properly for the individual stories and created "The Talons of Greel" instead of "The Talents of Greel" initially. I realized my mistake about 10 mins into creating this page so I quickly backtracked and created the new one.

Sadly the old page still exists (evn if there's nothing in it) and the title still comes up in the search bar. Could you or one of the other Admin folks kindly delete the page for me?

Apologies for not letting you know sooner.

Vincent VG ☎  22:22, August 27, 2019 (UTC)

List of actors reprising their roles at Big Finish
I've just seen that you deleted the page List of actors reprising their roles at Big Finish, that I created a while back. Can I have the content of it? I don't know how to retrieve it now, when the page is deleted - creating it was a long and thorough process, and I don't want that work to be lost forever. And I still think it's an important and interesting Big Finish statistic that should have a place at TARDIS Data Core for the readers. If someone has problems with the way the information is displayed, the list should be somehow reorganized, not wiped out, I think… Dmitriy Volfson ☎  16:21, August 28, 2019 (UTC)

10,000 Dawns debate
Hiya. As I'm sure you may have seen, quite the heated debate has raged in the thread about the inclusion of 10,000 Dawns. What I'm basically asking for is an impartial admin to look over the debate and get this thing closed. The debate has examined all the relevant wiki rules concerning the original reason for the case being made against 10,000 Dawns as a crossover series, and all users bar one have decided it should be included. With the main butting heads of the debate involving two admins (myself and Amorkuz), I think it's fairer to get someone who hasn't been involved in the thread's debate to pass final judgement on the decision to include them and close the thread, or whether the debate still needs to continue. Thanks. --Revan\Talk 20:29, August 28, 2019 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi, I just wanted to thank you for moderating the inclusion thread. It is usually a thankless job that is, nevertheless sorely needed, especially in this case. I am, therefore, abstain from posting until you give a signal. I would, however, ask you not to close the thread before that: there are multiple statements that are so incomplete that they are very misleading (with some directed against me personally). I am planning to provide fact checking and context for them one by one, in order for the closing admin, whoever that might be, to have a complete picture. Amorkuz ☎  19:41, September 1, 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am also waiting when they have time to chime in. The same conclusion can be reached in different ways, and it would be indeed good to have an alternative argument heard. Unfortunately, people can be busy. Even the deletion itself happened a week or two after the decision has been made because none of us had the time originally. Thanking you for permission to speak, I'll abstain from commenting for some more time, but there is much to be discussed.


 * Meanwhile, in regard to the invalid tags that were indeed absolutely necessary. While reverting my edits, Revanvolatrelundar not only restored the story pages but also restored information sourced from these stories on other existing in-universe pages, e.g., Rachel Edwards at the moment has a paragraph sourced from the invalid-unless-approved-by-the-inclusion-debate Rachel Survived, Miranda Dawkins has an almost full paragraph from the invalid-unless-approved-by-the-inclusion-debate White Canvas, etc. I did not want to answer to his reversal of my edits by reverting his edits in turn. That is a way to an edit war, and edit wars, especially among admin, do not benefit the wiki. It has always been the case that information from invalid stories is not allowed on in-universe parts of pages, which is why I consider these edits, edits made after he himself started the inclusion debate, to be a violation of wiki policies. But, as it is a dispute between two admin, I leave it for a third, impartial party to decide. (If needed, I can provide a complete list of the cases to be reviewed.) Amorkuz  ☎  07:49, September 3, 2019 (UTC)


 * Here is the list of pages I am aware of that currently contain in-universe information sourced exclusively from the three stories currently discussed at the inclusion debate (in most cases, these stories are also added in the infoboxes):
 * Astrolabus
 * Auteur
 * Axastyakis
 * Cá Bảy Màu
 * Coloth
 * Gideon (A Bloody And Public Domaine)
 * Hole (What Keeps Their Lines Alive)
 * Littlejohn
 * Miranda Dawkins
 * Mullion
 * The Needle
 * The Peace
 * Plume Coteries
 * Quoth
 * Rachel Edwards
 * Vo'lach
 * Vo'lach Prime
 * What Keeps Their Lines Alive (short story)
 * The following pages feature one of the stories only in the infobox
 * Painted warrior
 * The following pages mention at least one of three stories as a source while providing also an alternative valid source:
 * Cobweb and Ivory (short story)
 * A Farewell to Arms (short story)
 * Finally, these stories are present in Faction Paradox - list of appearances.


 * Thank you in advance for your consideration. Amorkuz ☎  22:23, September 3, 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for restoring order. Let's hope that the drama will subside and we can resume business as usual. Amorkuz ☎  06:59, September 4, 2019 (UTC)

Editor Rewards
Hey! I'm passing by to share yet another Fandom staff blog (just making sure these don't go unseen, particularly when they're relevant to editors.) This one is about Fandom's projects for Editor Rewards. You can find all the information in the blog, so not much to add on my part - feel free to check it if you wish, and comment if you have any questions/feedback. Cheers! --Playsonic2 ☎  13:46, September 2, 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with image copyright
Thank you for bringing to my attention the lack of the relevant copyright tag on the image I uploaded—that had been an oversight on my part, and I apologise for any inconvenience.

I am in the process of adding the appropriate copyright tag now, would you mind having a look & see if I've got everything right this time, when you have the time? And if you have any further comments/feedback, please do let me know. AthenodoraKitten ☎  15:38, September 4, 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Hi there, I've noticed you have been removing multiple replies from the 10,000 Dawns forum thread for getting close to or violating Tardis:No personal attacks, including one of my own. This is fine as per the rules of the wiki but I'd like to inquire why posts from Amorkuz that were accused of but were certainly close to violating this policy were not also edited or removed entirely. From my perspective, it looks like hypocrisy of the highest order. I look forward to hearing your response. --Borisashton ☎  22:42, September 11, 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your swift response. This clears up my question about why Amorkuz's posts weren't altered but it does not explain why no action has been taken against him. You blocked LilPotato for a single comment made on the debate, giving them no warning on their talk page before further action was taken. However, Amorkuz, who has been accused of violating Tardis:No personal attacks both before and after your comments asking such behaviour to stop has received nothing in the way of a block or even an official warning or message of disapproval. Did such a reprimand happen offsite (as with the original ruling) or are admins exempt from such policies? These are the only two possibilities I can think of. Thanks in advance, --Borisashton ☎  14:45, September 12, 2019 (UTC)
 * As per your request, I will stop messaging you on the subject of Amorkuz's poor conduct. However, I felt the need to clarify some of my previous statements. My statement about the number of possibilities for the reason of no action was ill-judged; I had jumped to the conclusion that the matter had been dealt with on your end given the short period it took you to block another user for similar offences.


 * Secondly, I also was not aware that you had plans to contact the original victims of the personal attacks as yet again I was judging by the precedent that a courtesy note of acknowledgement is usually left indicating that a matter is being discussed but that it may take some time.


 * Finally, I want to address the accusation that I was "questioning [your] motives and behavior". I want to make it extremely clear that it was not my intention to do so and I completely refute any implication that I was accusing you of any wrongdoing. (And although it is irrelevant now as it was not actually what I was doing, I hope that you realise that as long as you are an admin and a more prominent representative of this community, your questionable actions will be called out just like any other user.) My messages were quite clearly surrounding Amorkuz's behaviour not your own and I consulted you in the matter as per your request on the forum thread to contact an admin with my concerns. You seemed to be the logical choice as per your actions regarding your removal of comments (and more importantly my own) about this very issue.


 * To elaborate further as I think you may have slightly misunderstood, my second response to you was addressed more broadly to the entire admin team of the wiki but I chose to come back to you as we had already started a dialogue. If I should have gone to User:CzechOut or someone else I apologise but have never wanted to address the actions of the admin team as a whole before so did not know who to contact.


 * I hope this clears things up for you and I will await the verdict of you and the admin team regarding Amorkuz keenly. --Borisashton ☎  19:57, September 12, 2019 (UTC)

Template:Macqueen
Would you kindly edit Template:Macqueen so that it links to "A new lease of life" instead of "Impersonating the Doctor"? Thanks in advance. -- Saxon (✉️) 11:31, September 16, 2019 (UTC)
 * Bumping. -- Saxon (✉️) 22:30, September 18, 2019 (UTC)
 * Because it currently links to a subsection that covers only covers one story rather than the section for this incarnation of the Doctor [CORRECTION: Master]. Thanks. -- Saxon (✉️) 21:16, September 19, 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers. -- Saxon (✉️) 18:10, September 20, 2019 (UTC)

Quotes template
Hey there :) I was wondering if you could clarify something for me. I stumbled on  and (having not seen it before) checked out Tardis:Quotes again to see if it was there. It wasn't. So it got me wondering about whether we use the simple quote for articles or if we only stick to the standard   when doing so (which is what I've always done.) If I've missed something, I'll be glad for you to clarify. All the best. Snivy    ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦   07:43, September 18, 2019 (UTC)

Hey again! Thank you for the timely reply. :D I'm glad you were able to answer my question.

Funny that though how a new template for quoting was created but then not added to Tardis:Quotes. Given you found that the  template is best saved for pages that are unable to use the   template, do you think it is worth starting a discussion for including it as part of policy specifying that we only use it when the latter template is unable to be used or shall we keep it more free flowing and say, as you said initially, an editor can use whichever they think is best when editing? Either way, I'd personally argue it should at least be added to T:Quotes, or at least placed on its own policy page for future reference.

What do you think? Snivy   ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦   08:30, September 19, 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey again, letting you know that User:CzechOut got back to me at my talk page. I'll let you 'check out' what he said there. ;) Snivy   <font face="Cambria"><font color="Grey">✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦   08:33, September 20, 2019 (UTC)

Much like the other naming problem the other week, in the heat of the moment, while creating the new 1st Dr CC stories I created the page The Vardan Invasion of Earth instead of The Vardan Invasion of Mirth.

Same question, could you remove it please? Thanks

VincentVG ☎ 16:46, September 18, 2019 (UTC)

Virgin New Adventures
Hi,

Why'd you revert my edit?

Thanks, – N8 ☎ 03:34, September 26, 2019 (UTC)


 * Please check again. Thread:235670 was closed by User:Revanvolatrelundar and moved to the Matrix Archives about two weeks ago. – N8 ☎


 * How bizarre. From my view, it's definitely not open: I can't add any new comments, and at the top of the page there's a (Closed) notice next to the thread title in the nav box. But I'll let him know that there's more to be done. – N8 ☎ 14:21, September 26, 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, okay! You’re right, it’s very tiny and easy to miss. Thank you for understanding, and I hope you’ve been well! – N8 ☎ 14:49, September 26, 2019 (UTC)

Hiya! On this same subject, when closing these threads the "closing message" section box wasn't going through to add a proper closing message (it just buffered endlessly), leaving me to pop in a final comment and then close the thread. I tried on several different devices, and had the same error every time. Just thought I'd pop in and clear things up from my end - cheers. --Revan\Talk 15:41, September 26, 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I'd never thought that the length of the final post might be the problem. Cheers for that! --Revan\Talk 18:12, September 26, 2019 (UTC)

I added details on Ravenous 2 for Helen Sinclair and for whatever reason, they were removed.

Any chance of putting them back because I believe it was correct.

-Mr Thick

You seriously need to take a chill pill about editing the series pages, pointing out an frequent actor's last role in the series might not be notable, but talking about how a large continuity error came to be is. As well as removing information, like if how a large continuity error came to be is not notable, then how a companion was turned into a doll for one episode only shouldn't be either. Then there's putting series pages in the same format, there are two pages that don't either they're in the wrong or all the other pages are. So come on now, calm down.--Conorb59 ☎  02:24, October 3, 2019 (UTC)

The HAVOC File 2 Special Edition cover
Hi, just wanted to know what was wrong with the cover for The HAVOC Files 2 Special Edition. At first I thought it was deleted because of the name (that was the name it had on the Candy Jar Books website), but you've since deleted it again when it had a new name, and I thought I'd ask why. Thanks. :)

ThomasRWade ☎  23:24, October 3, 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining where I went wrong. I wasn't totally sure what I'd done, so that's why I thought I'd ask you. I've now followed youar instructions. Have a good weekend.

ThomasRWade ☎  04:54, October 4, 2019 (UTC)

Re: Forum post
Ah, I see what you mean. I apologize if I accidentally exceeded my authority in my pointing out of it.

Nevertheless, I find it curious to see you write that it's among other things not my job "to decide" whether he must follow Tardis:You are bound by current policy. Unless the Wiki turned into a dictatorship where admins are above the law while I wasn't looking, it's not a matter of decision, whether mine or anyone else's — by definition a user should follow Tardis's policies, of which T:BOUND is a rather fundamental one.

This was also within the scope of the inclusion debate, wherein which Amorkuz participates as a user like any other, trying to get at the truth of whether the 100,000 Dawns crossovers pass the Four Little Rules. I wouldn't have started bedeviling an admin about T:BOUND concerning an admin decision, but this wasn't one; I can't see how a debate is supposed to get anywhere if because some of the people participating in it happen to be admins, users are now prevented from pointing out when some of these people's reasonings are fallacious. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  14:43, October 4, 2019 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion, if you don't want people editing the series pages, how about you get rid of those badges you get when you make a certain amount of edits on the series pages. They feel like they're challenging me to edit the series pages and you don't think anything notable can be added (and everything already on them is notable so can't be removed).

Images
Understood. The image on the Yvonne Hartman page should be changed back to this image as the current one is one that I uploaded and added without any discussion. -- Saxon (✉️) 14:18, October 10, 2019 (UTC)

Citation
Hello. I notice that Tardis:Citation and Tardis:Prefixes makes no reference as to how to cite images from the covers of box sets themselves, as opposed to the episodes within. I wonder if you might know how such images should be cited on pages. Thanks in advance. -- Saxon (✉️) 14:41, October 12, 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, let me rephrase. For images that come from the cover of an anthology rather than the cover of a story (e.g. the cover of Dark Eyes 2 rather than The Traitor) how would one cite the picture? Would "AUDIO: Dark Eyes 2" do or something else, do you know? -- Saxon (✉️) 23:15, October 12, 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I appreciate it. -- Saxon (✉️) 13:18, October 17, 2019 (UTC)

Linking to the same thread!
D'oh. Thank you for pointing that out so speedily! I've fixed the link now :) – N8 ☎ 15:04, October 16, 2019 (UTC)

Dalek Battlecruiser image removal.
It would help if you actually bothered say anything about what I did wrong when putting up a completely ordinary image on the dalek Battlecruiser page rather than just mentioning policy. Or do you just think I'm a twat?

Edit: Thanks for clearing that up. I apologise for my earlier behaviour. It was an impulsive mistake born out of anger and frustration at the time. My comments about you on my page were unnecessary and went beyond the typical bounds of even my stupidity, though the psychological profile of myself is still accurate, even at the best of times. There is no doubt on my part that I am vastly inferior to most editors and I find the reems of policy related text somewhat heavy going.FlowG32 FlowG32

10,000 Dawns thread closure clarification
Hi Shambala, I have some questions about Thread:258247. This is not meant to argue with you or try to get the decision overturned; instead, I'm just trying to clarify what exactly it is that you're saying in the closing statement, as it appears to have the potential to set wide-ranging precedent for a variety of other stories on the wiki that crossover with other series, as is the case with the three stories that were being discussed. There are two quotes I want to ask you to elaborate on in particular:

"Now for the actual decision. A lot of focus was put on Rule 2, but we seem to have gotten away from considering Rule 4. … The clearest statement I found was on the author's website calling this "a whole new universe" and "a new science fiction universe"."

- Shambala108

Those are good quotes: the situation as I understand it from the OP is that 10,000 Dawns is indeed a standalone series set in a science fiction universe completely independent of Doctor Who, and the three stories up for discussion were explicitly-branded licensed crossovers between the 10KD and DW universes. Within the individual stories, it is made quite clear that the DW characters and the 10KD characters originate from different universes and are jumping between them to interact.

As your post reads, it seems that a major reason why you closed the debate in the way that you did was that Rule 4 was violated by those three stories. I want some clarity on this because there are a number of valid crossover stories where Doctor Who elements appear in a non-Doctor-Who-related series, and there have been several recent threads to this effect, such as Thread:213311 and Thread:257153.

Now, based on your post, crossovers should only be valid if the universe that Doctor Who elements are crossing over with is already connected to Doctor Who in some way. Is that a fair reading? It's an imminently reasonable new precedent, and one that will undoubtedly simplify many future inclusion debates, so I just want to make certain that I'm not misunderstanding you and that I will be able to correctly cite your post as precedent in the future.

"As has been pointed out before, the large majority of readers/users on this site only care about Doctor Who. We do allow a very large percentage of other stories onto the wiki, but unfortunately sometimes we have to draw the line for those that are two or more times removed from the DWU."

- Shambala108

Here my question is, where exactly is that line being drawn? The way I was looking at it, White Canvas is exactly 1 degree removed from Doctor Who: it features characters from BBC Doctor Who releases such as Short Trips, Father Time, etc. The only way the story could be 2 or more times removed from Doctor Who would be if we considered books like the BBC Eighth Doctor Adventures or the Short Trips series to themselves be 1 degree away from Doctor Who (a reasonable stance to take, since arguably Doctor Who is itself a TV show, and the books are spinoffs). Is this the stance we take?

I ask because, if this is the case, it finally gives me the precedent for requesting that we reconsider a vast number of stories that are 2 or more degrees removed from TVDW: for instance, the Bernice Summerfield and Iris Wildthyme series, among many others. For a while now I've privately longed for the deportation of all that content to a dedicated "Expanded Whoniverse" wiki or summat, so if you can clarify if this gives me the precedent to ask for such a thing a la the 10,000 Dawns Wiki that you pointed out, I'd very much appreciate it.

Hope you're well! – N8 ☎ 15:02, October 17, 2019 (UTC)

Cover question
The credit should be given to the thing from which they're drawn — so in the case of an anthology, it's that anthology's cover. The image, after all, doesn't actually come from any story, but is rather the amalgam of disparate elements used to market that anthology. It's important that readers understand that it came from the anthology rather than confusingly pointing to one story within it.

This is at least one reason why covers are really images of last resort. They're not in-universe at all. And their purpose is only to sell a product, not to depict events that happened in the story. To go to another franchise, I defy you to point to a single frame of Star Wars: Episode IV (or heck, any movie in the franchise) that looks like. Heck, show me a place where Mark Hamill was ever bare-chested in any Star Wars film! Likewise, as I always say about these things, we know Erimem was in fact Egyptian, so she doesn't look like — as she is often depicted on BF covers — Catherine Morris. 15:07: Thu 17 Oct 2019

Vandalism (and 10,000 Dawns)
Hi there. I saw this was briefly touched upon by User:NateBumber in his above message but I just wanted to ask if the judgement meant that 10,000 Dawns-related content was invalid or that it is so invalid it isn't allowed on the wiki.

There are no stories covered on the wiki that I can immediately think of apart from future releases that violate rule 2 or 3 (maybe Dimensions in Time?) so again, just wanted to check if the concerns in your final verdict amounted to those rules actually being violated or if it was just a simple rule 4 violation like most that are invalid on the wiki. I wanted to check now as I had created A 10,000 Dawns Christmas and 10,000 Dawns: The Book Club Collection but then suddenly thought that you just might not have had the time yet to delete the other Dawns stuff and I had been breaking T:BOUND. Thanks in advance.

Also, to get to this page I noticed that the vandalistic user pages User:Shambala108 touches children and User talk:Shambala108 touches children still exist and should be deleted. --Borisashton ☎  16:42, October 18, 2019 (UTC)