User talk:BananaClownMan

'''Welcome to the Thanks for your edits! We hope you'll keep on editing with us. This is a great time to have joined us, because now you can play the Game of Rassilon with us and win cool stuff! Well, okay, badges. That have no monetary value. And that largely only you can see. But still: they're cool!

We've got a couple of important quirks for a Wikia wiki, so let's get them out of the way first. British English, please We generally use British English round these parts, so if you're American, please be sure you set your spell checker to BrEng, and take a gander at our spelling cheat card. Spoilers aren't cool We have a strict definition of "spoiler" that you may find a bit unusual. Basically, a spoiler, to us, is anything that comes from a story which has not been released yet. So, even if you've got some info from a BBC press release or official trailer, it basically can't be referenced here. In other words, you gotta wait until the episode has finished its premiere broadcast to start editing about its contents. Please check the spoiler policy for more details. Other useful stuff Aside from those two things, we also have some pages that you should probably read when you get a chance, like:
 * the listing of all our help, policy and guideline pages
 * our Manual of Style
 * our image use policy
 * our user page policy
 * a list of people whose job it is to help you

If you're brand new to wiki editing — and we all were, once! —  you probably want to check out these tutorials at Wikipedia, the world's largest wiki:
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial

Remember that you should always sign your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes like this: ~ ~ ~ ~

Thanks for becoming a member of the TARDIS crew! If you have any questions, see the Help pages, add a question to one of the Forums or ask on my talk page. Shambala108 ☎  16:34, June 9, 2014 (UTC)

Delete tags
Please do not ever remove a delete tag from a page. Doing so could be interpreted as vandalism. Pages that are proposed for deletion require discussion. Please read Tardis:Deletion policy and Tardis:Vandalism policy. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎  14:34, June 12, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I though the matter had been settled when a category for heroic sacrificed had been made. BananaClownMan ☎  19:15, June 12, 2014 (UTC)

I can't edit the category Individuals exterminated by the Daleks for some reason. I want to put it in the Individuals by cause of death category but the wiki won't let me.Slughorn42 ☎  20:15, June 12, 2014 (UTC)

Death in science fantasy
Heya :) I'm sorry to have to do this to you since you've only just joined us, but I really have to delete all of your work categorising people by type of death. The reason is that these categories can be easily abused because they're ambiguous. In science fantasy like Doctor Who, it's often difficult to assess whether someone was really killed by another entity or not. More to the point, if they come back to life, did they, in point of practical fact, ever die in the first place?

To take but one example, let's examine Rory and Amy at the end of The Angels Take Manhattan. They ostensibly jumped off a roof, killed themselves, collapsed a reality — and then promptly came back to life. So did they commit suicide, or did they merely do the thing necessary to defeat the Weeping Angels? Moreover, did they commit suicide of any kind or were they effectively killed by the advancing Weeping Angels — pushed off the roof cause there was no other rational action to take? In other words, can their action be interpreted as self-preservation, rather than an irrational act of suicide?

See, it gets very, very complicated in science fantasy to ascribe with any certainty a) whether someone has died at all or b) who exactly killed them. And that's just normal science fantasy. With Doctor Who you've got the complicating factor of whether an incarnation of a Time Lord actually dies (as described by Ten), or whether it's more of a metamorphosis (as described by Two). And then there's Jack Harkness who is immortal and thus doesn't die. Yet some people describe him as dying multiple times and resurrecting himself.

It's all very tricky stuff which various fans will interpret differently. Thus, T:CAT NAME clearly applies to all these "individuals by type of death" categories. They simply are going to invite dispute, and so they're now going to be deleted.

Please don't let this discourage you from editing with us. I've had tons of my own edits deleted or overridden as have most editors who've been here for any length of time. And please don't think that we're in any way monitoring your work and looking for a way to delete it. We absolutely need you to stick around and help us! We've just found over the course the decade we've been open that some types of category tend to lead toward dispute, and that it's therefore important to choose category topics that don't obviously admit of multiple interpretations. 15:27: Fri 13 Jun 2014

Incarnations of the Doctor
Please note that, per Thread:145487, we do not pipe switch incarnations of the Doctor in the way you did at Christopher Eccleston. Please read the forum page so you can see how we are dealing with incarnations on this wiki. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎  15:56, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked for an hour so I can clean up your recent edits. When I have done so, I will explain the block and then unblock you. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎  16:34, June 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, the block has been lifted. Leave a message here if for some reason you are still unable to edit. Shambala108 ☎  16:40, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

Companions
Please do not remove companion categories for established articles. If the community decides they are companions, then one individual user is not allowed to remove them. If you think they do not deserve companion status, bring it up on the individual article talk pages. You are a new user here, and may not be aware that users can't just change certain things without community consensus. Please take the time to read Tardis:Discussion policy and Tardis:You are bound by current policy, as I believe these will help you understand how we deal with these kinds of situations. I will unblock you after I post this. Shambala108 ☎  16:39, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies, I merely believed that I was correcting a mistake. I mean, the Arwell family isn't even listed as companions of the episode page, and Dorium didn't even travel with the Doctor once, let alone in multiple episodes.BananaClownMan ☎  08:37, June 18, 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits
Hi. Please do not change the infobox name in articles. The infobox name must always match the article name (minus the dab term, if any),

In addition, please do not move pages. If you feel a page needs renaming, you can add a tag to it so there can be discussion. Then if discussion agrees, an admin can move it. There was no good reason for you to move "The War Chief" to "War Chief", as it's a long-established page. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎  13:21, June 24, 2014 (UTC)

Real world people categories
Hi! Your recent category additions, "Real world people encountered by the Doctor" and its subcategories, will most likely be deleted when the admins who have bots can get around to it. I wanted to let you know what the problems were so you understand why they aren't appropriate for the wiki.

First of all, you have to understand the distinction made on this wiki between in-universe and out-of-universe. In-universe applies to the story elements of characters, objects, organizations, etc. that are encountered in the stories. Out-of-universe applies to the production of the stories, including cast, crew, story plots, etc. We don't ever mix in universe categories with out of universe categories.

The problem with your categories is that, from the DWU perspective (that is, the in universe perspective), almost all of the people the Doctor encounters are "real world people". The category proposes to catalogue the people the Doctor meets from our real world, but out of universe categories are never to be applied to in universe pages.

Another problem is that your categories have been placed inside the category Real world people, which is an out of universe category, where we gather together all the people that have worked on DW and its spinoffs.

There are a few pages that can explain in detail the distinctions, which can often be hard for a new user to grasp. Please take a look at Tardis:Point of view, Tardis:In-universe perspective and Tardis:Out-of-universe perspective. In addition, the descriptions at Category:Real world people and Category:People from the real world can explain the distinction much better than I can.

In the future, to save yourself some hard work, if you have a major category suggestion, you might want to run it by an admin to see if it's appropriate for the wiki.

Thanks! Shambala108 ☎  15:21, June 24, 2014 (UTC)

User page
Hi! I have removed some information from your user page as it violated our spoiler policy. Please note that user pages are not exempt from the policy. Please carefully read Tardis:Spoiler policy, as we take it very seriously on this wiki. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎  14:28, July 21, 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I just assumed it would be okay since, logically,  will be my first Twelfth Doctor story when it airs in 5 weeks.BananaClownMan ☎  14:48, July 21, 2014 (UTC)


 * Please, please, please read the policy. Even mentioning the title on this talk page is a violation. Shambala108 ☎  15:30, July 21, 2014 (UTC)

Starting a forum post
Hi! To start a forum post, you just head to the board you want located at Special:Forum. In your specific example, you would go to Board:The Panopticon. Near the top of that page, look for "Start a discussion". When you click on that, you will get a question "What do you want to talk about?" — that is for your forum title. The box below, that says "post a new message to the The Panopticon board", is for your message itself. Please note that you do not have to sign your name in the forums, as it will automatically be done for you. Shambala108 ☎  23:39, December 19, 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you.BananaClownMan ☎  23:44, December 19, 2014 (UTC)

Category rules
Please ensure that any categories you add to pages are substantiated in the main text. For example, you must add a note to Michael Wisher explaining why the page carries Actors who have voiced for the Doctor. Categories are not a substitute for content. Thanks-- 00:56, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

Okay. BananaClownMan ☎  09:32, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

Category structure
I reverted your edits on the Doctor actor pages and I thought I should give a full explanation as to why. Tardis:Category tree details the basic structure to categories on this wiki. The four overarching categories of articles are in-universe, real world, non-DWU, and wiki administration. So, "articles that are in one of these four categories should not go into another of them." Matt Smith is a real world article, so it can't be put in Category:Look alikes of the Doctor, which is in-universe. Category:Doctor Who actors that exist in the DWU is an edge case. It makes more sense for these articles to be primarily real world, so we stick to real world categories. I hope that makes sense. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page.  P&amp;P  talk   contribs  03:35, December 21, 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you have any questions about categories, it's best to ask an admin. CzechOut is the person who best understands the category structure on this wiki. Shambala108 ☎  03:59, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Infobox images
Hi! It is common practice on this wiki, when wanting to change infobox images for popular pages like the Doctor and his companions, to run the proposed images by the community first, via the article's talk page. This is done for two main reasons:


 * Often a user's desired image falls short of our infobox image policies. These policies are spelled out at Tardis:Guide to images.
 * For really popular pages, merely changing the image without community consensus often leads to edit wars, with users going back and forth removing each others' images.

Therefore, if you want to change the infobox images at Third Doctor, Fourth Doctor, or indeed any of these popular pages, read the policy above to make sure you understand the guidelines, then post the image on the article's talk page, allowing for discussion. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎  20:45, January 2, 2015 (UTC)


 * Please leave a message on my talk page stating that you have read the above message. Since I posted it, you have ignored it twice, at Seventh Doctor and Eighth Doctor. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you missed my message, so please get in touch with me. Shambala108 ☎  18:33, January 5, 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I did in fact miss this, I was getting junk mail from Flash/Arrow wiki and must have deleted the update when I clicked on the "all wikis" section of the "mark read" button.BananaClownMan ☎  18:35, January 5, 2015 (UTC)

Spoiler policy
Hiya. I just noticed that back in December, you made an edit to Roz Forrester that violated the spoiler policy. I realize this is a bit late, but we take the spoiler policy really seriously, and I see that you've been warned before, so I want to make this very clear: any information from an unreleased story is a spoiler and disallowed. Titles, actors, anything.  P&amp;P  talk   contribs  06:05, February 19, 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Shambala108 has pointed out to me that I might be coming across as if I'm an admin. To be clear, I'm not an admin. I'm just an enthusiastic editor, and I apologize for any confusion. Thanks.  P&amp;P  talk   contribs  17:35, February 19, 2015 (UTC)

Trenzalore
No, the 'fan speculation' is that the Trenzalore tomb is alternate. Never was such a thing said in the show. Not. Once. The Great Intelligence was quite clear on it, the Doctor was clear on it, and all production chatter about the episode was clear on it. The Doctor dies on Trenzalore. It's not an alternate timeline.

Messages on your talk page
Hi! I need to point out that you are never to remove messages from others on your talk page (unless they are vandalism, which Meganerd18's message is not). To do so is a violation of Tardis:Vandalism policy. If you feel that a user has violated Tardis:No personal attacks, you can talk to an admin, but don't remove the message.

Regarding the alternate timeline/Tenzalore stuff, you might be interested in reading comments made on Thread:153800. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎  15:00, February 19, 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. Also, Thread:153800 hasn't convinced me the Trenzalore thing is still to come.BananaClownMan ☎  16:31, February 19, 2015 (UTC)

Tenth Doctor
I have been trying to improve the Tenth Doctor article and make it more accurate to what we see of him, such as his arrogance being a product of anger and superiority and you seem to have a problem with me noting that in the article. Why? The Fox King (talk) 14:31, March 22, 2015 (UTC)

You have continually removed a paragraph about his breaking points in the 2009 specials, his anger is covered above the paragraph about his flaws, and your examples of strength are open to interpretation; Lucius Petrus Dextrus's stone arm might have been fragile from the petrification process and the Heavenly Host he fought was damaged and might not have been at full strength.BananaClownMan ☎  14:49, March 22, 2015 (UTC)


 * BananaClownMan, please in the future address your replies to the user's talk page, so they will receive a notification that you've answered them. This is standard wiki practice built into the system. The above user may never see your reply since you left it on your page. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎  15:48, March 22, 2015 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked for one month for violating Tardis:No personal attacks. Your behavior to a relatively new user at Tenth Doctor is decidedly unwelcoming. I understand that you put a lot of work into cleaning up the Doctor pages, but I've noticed that you tend to undo many edits to those pages. Any wiki editor knows their work may be changed.

After seeing today's almost-edit-war at Tenth Doctor, I intended to speak to you on your user page about your tendency to undo others' work, but your last edit at the page left the following edit summary: " Any further examples of removal or poor use of grammer will have consequences)". This sounds like a direct threat, and you do not even have any abilities or powers to enforce any such consequences.

Your block will last one month, and that's being extremely generous. Most of the time, I and other admins would block you permanently, but I take some responsibility in not addressing this issue with you earlier. Your block will expire in one month. Shambala108 ☎  15:45, March 22, 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the generosity, and apologies for my arrogance; I understand that just cause I put so much work into the pages does not give me ownership of them now. Maybe I rushed back to the wiki too soon, still full of myself for my "victory lap" and feeling threatened when someone else made an edit. I think this is a wake up call to my "mortality", for lack of a better term, and that I need an enforced vacation to bring down my ego. Thank you for helping me see that.BananaClownMan ☎  16:28, March 22, 2015 (UTC)

Re-Apology
All is forgiven, although I don't see how I was writing anything in bad grammar as it was all true. I've re-written it more all-anticipating though now. The Fox King (talk) 07:08, April 23, 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and I have now re-edited the article and put the citations next to the information they correspond with. The Fox King (talk) 00:23, April 24, 2015 (UTC)

Update templates
You might want to read the text at. Basically, is for marking whole pages as in need of additions and goes at the top, while  marks individual sections as in need of additions. The latter might be more appropriate for what you're trying to do on the Doctor articles.  P&amp;P  talk   contribs  10:57, April 25, 2015 (UTC)

Twelfth Doctor
Please explain the following edit summary that you posted at Twelfth Doctor:


 * "(http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/why-i-love-the-twelfth-doctor-73011.htm Updated with new information)"

Are you trying to cite an outside source for in-universe information? Shambala108 ☎  16:21, April 25, 2015 (UTC)


 * Please stop citing non-valid sources in your edit summaries. I know you're not citing them in the article, but new users might see your edit summaries and think the sources are valid and can be used within the articles. If you must cite them, please do so with an explanation on the article talk page, not in your edit summaries. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎  19:21, May 4, 2015 (UTC)

Placement of Titan 12th comics
So just to keep from starting a big dumb edit war, how long should we keep piling the Titan Twelfth Doctor stories between Caretaker and Kill the Moon? I've been reading them and none have ever explicitly stated where they take place, the current placement started because of the reference of Skovok Blitzer in Terrorformer. Meanwhile the DWA and DWM stories are currently piling up in the post-Last Christmas pile. Should their placement be considered too? --TARDIS2468 ☎  12:36, July 11, 2015 (UTC)

Seventh Doctor
Please leave a response to Shambala108's request on the Seventh Doctor Talk Page. RogerAckroydLives ☎  03:33, July 25, 2015 (UTC)

Please leave a response to User:RogerAckroydLives's proposition on the Seventh Doctor Talk Page. The matter has been brought up with the community and the limited response has been entirely in my favour. Please consider my offer, and end this debate. RogerAckroydLives ☎  19:26, July 30, 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from being insulting and needlessly harsh. The onus was on you to respond. I have no control over your personal life, and no relation with it. Nothing I have done has been with any intention to exacerbate your personal problems, and, in all honesty, nothing truly could have done so. Please maintain your maturity when conversing with others. RogerAckroydLives ☎  11:36, July 31, 2015 (UTC)

Edits at First Doctor
Hey :) I wanted to leave you a note to explain why I had to revert your recent edits at First Doctor. The main matter at issue was your simplification of references to support the claim that the Doctor was a genuine father/grandfather.  While you did make the text somewhat simpler to read, you took away the reader's ability to judge for herself which of the two claims — we'll call them the television claim (genuine parent) and the Lungbarrow claim (not genuine parent) — has the greater support in Doctor Who fiction.  Having a large number of references for the television claim is correct, because that's generally how the legend goes.  It helps readers tremendously to know that it receives the far greater support, because that's the case in the body of all Doctor Who fiction.  The Lungbarrow claim is barely referenced outside of that one book, and it's fair to present as a minority view.

As my time is short, it's possible that I reverted more than your edits on this particular point within the article. If I did, I'm sorry about that, and it wasn't what I intended. But please do retain the imbalanced references present on the parenthood point as you continue to edit the article.

Thanks so much for all your work around here! 22:54: Tue 18 Aug 2015


 * Also about your edits at First Doctor, there really is no need for you to apologize. It was an easy mistake, but it could have been prevented; I mentioned the fact that the Doctor had companions with him in my edit. In the future, please fully read something before deciding it's incorrect. The Champion of Time    ☎  16:27, April 17, 2016 (UTC)

Re: The Brink of Death
Sure! I'd be happy to :D However, I'm a bit busy at the moment and have only had time to view parts of each (In total, they amount to a whopping 5 or 6 hours, behind the scenes included), so I can only tackle some of the last audio for now, and will put a stub for the other three. That's why I held off, but since you asked, I bet I can do a little bit of sprucing up! --Thunderush ☎  15:54, August 19, 2015 (UTC)

Requests to other users
Hi! While I completely understand your desire to "complete" the various Doctor pages, I need to tell you to refrain from asking other users to fill in missing sections. We are all busy with our lives, and have priorities of what we want to do on the wiki. In addition, both users that you have asked, User:OttselSpy25 and User:Thunderush, have been around on this wiki for a while, and they are both well aware of what needs to be done. It is their choice whether they want to contribute in certain ways or not, without other users or even admins asking them to do it. Thanks! Shambala108 ☎  18:20, August 19, 2015 (UTC)

Titan Back-up Comics
Hey, I just wanted to tell you that we are currently sending down a final vote on the Titan back-up comics down at Thread:177099. You seemed to have a pretty strong opinion on the issue, so I just wanted to make sure that you knew that the vote was happening. The polls currently tally to three votes for the back-up strips being valid and four for them being invalid. All votes have gone towards making the WeLoveTITANS comics invalid. If you want a say in the matter, there is a week and three days left on voting. Sorry for the bother! :-) OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 21:26, September 2, 2015 (UTC)

Ninth Doctor
Please revert your correction of User:Skittles the hog's reversion of your edit. The Ninth Doctor article is absolutely not told from the point of view of the Ninth Doctor. As stated at Tardis:In-universe perspective, all in-universe articles are written from a neutral perspective. Please see the policy page in question. Shambala108 ☎  14:42, September 24, 2015 (UTC)

Undo function
Hi! At this point in your editing, I have to tell you to stop using the "undo" function when other people edit the Doctor/Master pages or other pages you've worked on. As you've acknowledged, you do not own these pages, and a basic tenet of wiki editing is that our work can be undone/changed at any time.

Your use of the "undo" function has alienated other users (there has been at least one vocal complaint), and at times, in your attempts to undo what you think is wrong, you are also undoing corrections of policy violations.

Another issue is the placement of stories on these character pages. Please do not get so strict about the timeline of stories. In the DWU, there is just so much contradiction and lack of information that any timeline info we come up with is going to involve speculation. That is why we moved timelines out of the main namespace and into the theories namespace.

Continue to edit, but if you do see a need to remove part of another user's edit, you must leave an edit summary explaining why. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎  00:13, September 25, 2015 (UTC)

Masters
Hey, I noticed that you did some cleanup work at The Master, and while it mostly looks great there are a couple issues. For one, deciding concretely when the Master was captured without any info to suggest it is pure speculation. Your placement on Simm kinda works, as it leaves it up to the reader to decide when the capture happens, but your direct placement of the Roberts' section of while he's changing is pure speculation. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 22:44, October 2, 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, we can't place the info on them being captured by the Sild on every incarnation and alternate timeline unless the story explicitly references them clearly. So Simm is cool I think, and maybe a few others (I'd have to check) but putting them on every novel and audio Master is simply speculation. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 22:47, October 2, 2015 (UTC)

But "all incarnations" within one story does not qualify what the novel takes as that to mean. In the same way that The Gift can not qualify Doctors 9-12. It also doesn't help that qualifications for seperations between incarnations is unclear. Some think Delgado, Pratt, Beavers, Ainley, Beavers in the Seventh Doctor audios, and Beavers in the post-TV movie audios are all the same incarnation. We don't know what the book or the Sild qualified as "the incarnations of the Master." The only Masters that should be added are those included or described in the book. Also it needs to include how they (as I presume they do) get back to their own times.

Also we need to cut down on the starting a sentence with one story before cutting into an unrelated one. It incorrectly suggests a correlation between the two stories, and is blatant laziness, trying to not actually write a complete description of the story and instead piggy backing on another.

On the topic of the "drezz for the occasion" issue, while it makes sense to boil it down to a fine point in the story where he was captured, it could also just be that that the authors didn't know or care that the Bruce body has not been brought back in any sources. Keep in mind that the story claims that the band spent decades practicing -- that doesn't make any sense with the TV movie's claim that Bruce's body has hours left. Instead of making jumps in logic, it's better to put it in the Bruce section and to leave it up to the reader to decide. If that seems bulky, then it will indeed need to be consider putting it in the "After the Eye of Harmony" section. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 23:27, October 2, 2015 (UTC)

Moving pages
Hi! Please note that per Thread:128198, only admins are permitted to move pages. Please see the forum post for reasons and instructions. Shambala108 ☎  14:20, October 4, 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I get it, but you left behind a redirect for each move which I have to delete, but I can't until I change all the links. That's why only admins move pages, because non-admins can't delete the redirects and usually don't bother to change the links. Shambala108 ☎  14:35, October 4, 2015 (UTC)

Re: undo instructions
I hate to have to do this, but I'm blocking you for a week. I've told you to stop using the undo function to revert another user's good faith edits, and that if you had to use it, to leave an edit summary. You and User:RogerAckroydLives cannot keep undoing each other's edits. It has to stop and this is the only way I can get through to you. Shambala108 ☎  21:35, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

Edit summary
Please don't use the edit summaries to form a conversation or a lengthy speech. Edit summaries are for short explanations of one's edit, not a chat forum. Thanks. --DCLM ☎  11:11, October 23, 2015 (UTC)

Reversions
Please stop reverting my edits. Even if you do not accept my rationale, you are consistently removing far more information that simply that which you disagree upon. RogerAckroydLives ☎  11:37, October 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't start an edit war. Contact an admin or solve it another way. --DCLM ☎  11:41, October 23, 2015 (UTC)

Timeline info
Hi! Please note that the theory:timeline namespace is not a valid source for any in-universe articles. It is based on speculation, which is why timelines were removed from the main namespace in the first place (see Forum:Timeline sections on pages). Please understand that there are sets of stories for which we will never know the proper timeline because different authors don't care about each others' work, and that it is not a focus of the main namespace of this wiki to properly order stories. I know that's one of your interests, but it's just not possible.

On another note, User:Revanvolatrelundar is pretty much our expert on anything Eighth Doctor-related, so I'd take his word on Eight's timeline. Thanks! Shambala108 ☎  15:37, November 4, 2015 (UTC)

Reminder
Hi! I need to remind you once again that the theory timeline namespace is absolutely not a valid source for in-universe articles. Stop using it as a source, even in the edit summary.

It is not necessary to have an exact timeline on the Doctor pages. I don't know how to make that more clear to you. Most of the timeline placement is based on speculation or improperly drawn conclusions (like character's clothing). Thanks. Shambala108 ☎  23:46, November 15, 2015 (UTC)

Couple of things
Hi! A couple of things: There is plenty of other work that can be done on the Doctor pages, since that seems to be your interest. Forget about making some kind of coherent chronology in the main namespace, or at least take it to Theory:Timey-wimey detector. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎  15:34, November 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, never ever link to an off-site video, not on an article, any kind of talk/discussion page, or even in the edit summary, as you did at Twelfth Doctor. Please read Tardis:Video policy.
 * Second, since you were the one who brought up a supposedly "off-topic" argument at Thread:185178, I just have to tell you that it is your and User:RogerAckroydLives's editing practices that prompted my comments. The two of you have been undoing each other's edits as well as the edits of other users, and you seem to be placing way too much effort on establishing some kind of chronology of the Doctor. Let me state this as clearly as I can: you can't do that. DW is too full of contradictions and missing information. Therefore, going beyond what a story tells is speculation (which is not allowed), and trying to reconcile two differing stories is just going to cause edit wars.

Voice from the Vortex Invalid
I saw that you recently added an invalid tag to Voice from the Vortex! (short story). Was there any discussion about this beforehand or did you just decide to invalidate it? TheChampionOfTime ☎  22:03, January 21, 2016 (UTC)


 * This wiki does not invalidate stories based on continuity. I really understand where you're coming from, but this story was simply written in the style of a Doctor Who Annual story. This is a regular Ninth Doctor story with Rose Tyler behind a layer of intentional mistakes. TheChampionOfTime ☎  22:27, January 21, 2016 (UTC)


 * Could you please start a discussion before you add an invalid tag next time. :) TheChampionOfTime ☎  17:24, January 22, 2016 (UTC)

Hello There how are you

Night Flight to Nowhere
It seems odd that a story published in 1982 would feature Delgado, are you sure this is the case? The Champion of Time    ☎  23:27, May 11, 2016 (UTC)


 * I suppose that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation! The Champion of Time     ☎  16:07, May 12, 2016 (UTC)

Ordering and placement
Feel free to start another edit war.

On a less exasperated note, and disregarding the various forms of harassment and insult you have put me through, I haven't been reordering stories (out of, I assume you mean) broadcast order, simply reordering the two stories which follow timelines on other pages, or will when they are created. Flowerchild's earring and Ace's rucksack in particular will both need to be ordered the way they occur, not the way they are broadcast, so Ace and 7 might as well follow the same order. I know you won't ever be convinced, but whatever. RogerAckroydLives ☎  12:19, May 13, 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the apology, it is much appreciated. I don't feel any great resentment towards you, it's just difficult to start a discussion afresh with a history like ours, especially when I'm greeted with the message title "Old habits die hard".


 * I don't know if I can give you any particularly helpful sources, but the reason for my most recent edit to 7's page was twofold: first and foremost, it was due to the fact that I've been doing a lot of edits with relation to the "Fashion and clothing" area of the wiki, adding some very basic pages, (coat, jumper, jacket, cravat etc.) doing some reworking of the applicable categories and adding info on costumes, especially those of the Doctor's themselves, having recently found some very good sources on the topic. Secondly, however, I was relistening to some of the 7/Ace/Hex stories and noticed some references to her (original) rucksack, and its destruction in SN. I can't give you a story as I can't recall at this precise moment, but it was further reference to a chronology which set SN after GSitG, and is further evidence for a non-broadcast order chronology being valid.


 * Again, thanks for the reevaluation; I'm glad of your support. My old arguments aren't precisely what I think now, given the fact that, while all of what I said is completely defensible, some of it isn't so much evidence as implication (Peri talks about Daleks in Timelash, but it wasn't even intended to be set before Revelation, let alone broadcast out of production order, rendering my GL/Curse argument a bit pointless). However, when it comes to the actual physically evidenced stuff, (earring/rucksack) I still feel the same: broadcast order be damned, these stories are set in a different order, and my opinion has nothing to do with production sequence (otherwise I would be campaigning for Happiness to be set after SN, something I have no intention of doing).


 * I'm glad we can move forward, and I hope we can continue work together. RogerAckroydLives ☎  13:00, May 13, 2016 (UTC)

Revision note at Ninth Doctor
Hiya :) Couldn't help but notice this diff, in which you take great umbrage to Tybort's simple act of editing. I hadn't really noticed before but MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning2 seems to have been relegated recently to just the Monobook skin.

Nevertheless it's a long-standing notion that when you submit changes to the copy of articles, you've got to be prepared for them to be "mercilessly edited". This concept is so central to Wikipedia that they consider it one of their five most basic notions. (See .)

Put another way, none of us owns any of the articles here. While any may request a little time to edit an article without interference, and while there may be the occasional need for an admin to lock down an article protectively, anyone is free to edit articles as they see fit (with some broad exceptions for inappropriate language or provable factual errors).

Finally, it's important to remember what the word edit actually means — to prepare written material for publication by correcting, condensing or otherwise modifying it. According to the diff above, that's all Tybort was doing: modifying by condensing. My interpretation of the edit was simply that he felt the article had become needlessly wordy, so he truncated parts of it.

Trust me, readers on phones — a substantial part of our audience — appreciated his efforts. It is important that we try to keep things brief, and the details he excised were, in my view, clearly better-placed elsewhere on the wiki. Remember, the pages about the incarnations of the Doctor should be used to give the most significant details about an incarnation's life. It's up to the story pages, or in some cases individual person or object pages, to give details. The general notion for a wiki is that readers should go from a broad article (Ninth Doctor) to something more specific (story article) to something even more specific (an article about a person, place or thing). If you try to cram everything on to the top-level article, the reader will have no incentive to click through to other pages.

So, please, don't take offence: Tybort was genuinely editing the piece, and doing so in good faith. With any luck, the recaps of the Peladon stories that you mentioned will also be trimmed soon enough. 23:46: Mon 23 May 2016

Reverting edits
Hi! As you may remember, I left a message on your talk page on September 25th requiring you to leave an edit summary when you undo another user's edits. By my count, since that message you have undone 25 edits, leaving an edit summary on only 5. That comes to 20%. That is unacceptable. Due to your frequent use of the undo function, I am requiring you to leave an edit summary when you make this type of edit. It doesn't have to be long-winded; it just has to explain why you feel the edit is invalid. Do other editors the courtesy of explaining why their edits are undone. Shambala108 ☎  02:41, May 24, 2016 (UTC)

Time placement revisited
Hi! Regarding the message you left at User talk:RogerAckroydLives: "I have recently made it my mission to look upon all available information on the PROSE, AUDIOs and COMICs that can be linked together to form the most logical timeline of events for the Doctor. My modus operadi thus far has been to do most the legwork on a word document, then publish my finding onto the timeline theory pages, wait a few days to see if anyone contradicts what I put, then update to biography on the Doctor's page."

There are several things wrong here.

First and foremost: I have repeatedly told you (and RAL for that matter) to stop trying to make some kind of timeline out of the various Doctor pages. I have explained on your talk page (several times) as well as various forum threads and/or talk pages, and I still can't get through to you. Please explain to me why you are having so much trouble understanding my words.

Second: I have told you before that the theory namespace is absolutely not a valid source for in-universe articles. That namespace exists only because we wanted to let users play around with timelines when we removed them from the main namespace. Any attempt to sort Doctor adventures into some kind of order belongs only in the theory namespace.

Third: It is against basic wiki policy to put information somewhere (in this case, the theory namespace where very few regular editors visit), say "If no one objects, my information must be valid", and then put that information onto main namespace pages. Under most circumstances, you must submit changes to a place where more users can see it, that is, a forum or a talk page. In this case, however, we are still dealing with timeline information, which cannot be used on in-universe pages.

You obviously enjoy doing this project, but I will state as clearly as I can, '''keep the ordering of timelines on the timeline namespace. There is no way to reconcile the several different authors and media in a way that makes sense. We do not allow speculation on this wiki. Therefore, there should be no attempts to create an ordered timeline on the Doctor pages.'''

If you haven't read Forum:Timeline pages and Forum:Timeline sections on pages, I suggest you do so. They deal with the removal of pages/sections that we no longer have, but the reasoning for removing them applies to what I am trying (apparently without any success) to explain to you. Shambala108 ☎  02:37, June 3, 2016 (UTC)


 * In response to your comment on my talk page, and I'm sure Shambala108 will agree with this, there is absolutely nothing wrong with contributing to the Theory:Timeline pages. Her problem seems to be with things like this where you've rearranged the Third Doctor's entire biography in one fell swoop with the explanation of "Having looked up the continuity of these stories, I think I found the most logical placing of them.". Now please remember that I am most definitely not an expert on how to do things here, but I would recommend that when changing the order of stories in a character's biography you should be able to uncontroversially explain your changes in the edit description (i.e. don't change too much at once and say something other than "because this is the order in the timeline" or "this is the most logical").
 * Also it's good to remember there are many events that are just impossible to pinpoint and to claim that there is a most logical place to put them could be considered pure speculation. C o T     ☎  20:07, June 4, 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I worry that Shambala108 might not approve, but... I'd say go for it. Personally, I agree with you that it makes sense to sort Eleventh Doctor stories into those with the purple jacket and those without. If there is a story where the Sixth Doctor is travelling alone and is wearing a blue coat then it makes perfect sense to put that in a place in his biography before he stops wearing it. All I'm saying is instead of making one huge edit where you switch story order maybe make several smaller edits. But, as I said above, I am not an expert on this wiki's policies. I hesitantly advise that as long as it's backed up with evidence and not complete speculation you can probably do it. But don't take my word for it.


 * Also, happy belated birthday! : ) C o T     ☎  23:49, June 6, 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to respond to all of the specific points you left on my talk page, but let me start with this: When an admin has told you not to do something, do not ever attempt to get permission from another user to try to use it as justification as you did at User talk:TheChampionOfTime. He/she is a relatively new user, even newer than yourself, and your trying to get him/her involved in your attempts to get around my instructions is pretty low.

Ok, now to your specific points:
 * "Before I get down to business, I'd like to voice my displeasure at you reading what was meant to be a message for User:RogerAckroydLives only." This is a wiki. There is no such thing as a private message. Please read Tardis:Vandalism. If you need to send someone a private message, you will need to do it off-site.
 * "I just feel compelled for things to have order." I understand, believe me, and we already discussed this long ago. However, you can't seem to accept that we cannot give any completely factual order for Doctor stories. I've told you (and User:RogerAckroydLives) several times but you either don't get it or you think you can ignore it.
 * "I noticed that the only contribution you made to those talks was in the defence of a timeline page; what made you change your mind?" What changed my mind was the ending of the discussion and the establishing of the policy. Please see Tardis:You are bound by current policy. In addition, I am an admin and it is my job to enforce policy on this wiki. Are you actually suggesting that I should ignore the policy because I disagreed with it before it became policy?

I will try to state this as simply as possible (and this will be my last attempt to get through to you):

Because we can't definitely place the entirety of Doctor stories in any kind of non-speculative order, we will always have users disagreeing about story placement and undoing each others' edits. From my point of view (as an admin), this is unacceptable. Please see Tardis:Editing policy. It is my job to enforce the policies of no timeline info, no speculation, and no edit wars, and I will enforce it by whatever means will work.

The reason I'm making a big deal with this is that you have in the past undone the edits of other users because of story placement, some of whom were new to the wiki, and this is an extremely unfriendly action to take. That's why I am so opposed to this story order mess. Shambala108 ☎  01:07, June 7, 2016 (UTC)

Costume vs placement
Hi BCM. I recently noted your conversation with CoT (hopefully not being too intrusive, just had a look when it came up on my "followed pages" notifications) and saw you cited my use of costume for placement on 11's page. Before you assume that it's my attitude to arrange everything strictly by costume, I would like to note that the particular costume I was editing around had an obvious "introduction scene", which would indicate placement for any sources not including contradictory information. I don't edit like I did in this instance all the time: eg. The Algebra of Ice clearly features the Doctor in his NA costume, with his waistcoat being his pullover replacement for the TV movie, and even has Ace comment on how the Doctor used to look as compared to now. The cream suit, however, was introduced, to Ace's surprise, in White Darkness, long after her solo adventures with 7 had concluded, and approximately a quarter of the way into the NAs. Algebra, on the other hand, clearly sets its "a good while later" (two years+) epilogue shortly after Timewyrm: Revelation, yet goes so far as to have the Doctor in the same costume as he is in the main bulk of the narrative. Of course, narrative facts trump costume, but presumably Lloyd Rose mistakenly believed that the NA costume was introduced at the beginning of the series, leading to a strange semi-error. I'm certainly not advocating for it to be placed somewhere all but inexplicable simply because of this. Only when costume or clothing has a clear timeline (item is discovered/acquired at a set point) do I try to place otherwise vague stories in such an order. Unusual clothing does not trump narrative continuity, however, even if it contradicts established costume continuity, and I don't want you to take what I did in one context as a declaration of intent with regard to any and every other.

Yours with no intended malice, RogerAckroydLives ☎  06:45, June 7, 2016 (UTC)