User talk:Shambala108

Can you please tell me why you undid those edits. Allonsy potter ☎  04:46, March 4, 2016 (UTC)

Unregistered user(s) vandalism
Hi. Is there anything that can be done about (an) unregistered user(s) who I believe is just going out of their way to delete information they don't like from specific pages? I brought this up to another mod last month, but for whatever reasons never heard back and the problem has only persisted.

For several days in January unregistered user, 68.111.182.93, began coming onto the wiki to vandalize the spouse section of the Twelfth Doctor page by changing River to Clara and after a week of this got banned. Two days later another unregistered user, 108.171.131.189, popped up and began deleting River's name and/or the spouse section in the infobox. A couple other IPs that are only one digit off at the end also keep coming around in early February to trade off changing the Twelfth Doctor page to do the same thing: 108.171.131.187, 108.171.131.186, and 108.171.131.188. As of late February, similar antics began on the River Song page where unregistered user 69.174.87.76 is turning "The Doctor" into "11th Doctor" in the spouse section and erasing the species2 section even though it's valid per information in AGMGTW. At the same time, the same IP is once again erasing River's name on Twelve's page and an IP that only differs at the last three digits, 69.174.87.164, changed details and added an incorrect section heading on the Twelfth Doctor page to give the River/Twelve relationship a less intimate spin.

Given the timing and the strikingly similar behavior, I can't help but suspect that this is the work of a single person flying under the radar with different IPs that aren't actually that different when you look at the chunks of time they're active. Is there anything that can be done about this? Or at the very least, can the Twelfth Doctor and River Song pages be changed to only be editable by registered users? Mewiet ☎  17:15, March 4, 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes
So we don't want infoboxes on as many pages as possible? The Champion of Time  TALK  11:40, March 5, 2016 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to know why you deleted the part in 1964 (releases) that informed about Dr Who and the Daleks sweet cigarettes? HighlandFling ☎  14:38, March 14, 2016 (UTC)HighlandFling

Hey there
I sent you an email on Thursday - did you happen to receive it? Ducksoup ☎  20:45, March 28, 2016 (UTC)


 * Then you should check your spam! If it didn't land in spam, let me know. Ducksoup ☎  22:19, March 29, 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a new user and added a photo to the Marcus Gilbert page but you deleted it as under the wrong licence. As I went through the list and the User licence seemed to be the one that fitted the image, can you tell me where I went wrong please? I find the whole licence issue very confusing and would appreciate your guidance as to which licence I should have used or if I cannot add a photo at all. I have consent to use the photo. Many thanks, MGFansite ☎  03:50, March 29, 2016 (UTC)

about Invasion of the Dinosaurs (TV story) - Shouldn't Sarah's reference to the song "A Nightingale Sang In Berkeley Square be mentioned as a music reference? Scout Finch ☎  15:49, March 31, 2016 (UTC)

Category:Men and Category:Women
Why did you delete my contributions? RoseTenthFan ☎  15:13, April 16, 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw articles already in these categories, but now they are all in :Category:Males and :Category:Females because humans do not eem to have a special status in DWU. RoseTenthFan ☎  14:26, April 20, 2016 (UTC)

Deleting Template:The Doctor
I don't get it, what is it in Thread:193167 that explains why the template should be deleted? The comments made by SOTO were directed towards creating an infobox, not a navbox. And not only did SOTO have no problem with the navbox, I also asked P&P if there were any problems with it, and again was not told that it was an issue. Even you had a chance to stop me when you closed the thread. Please explain exactly why this should be deleted. The Champion of Time    ☎  04:37, April 24, 2016 (UTC)


 * Its been a few days, and you don't seem to have read the message. Are you not following your own talk page? I don't mean to be rude, but you've most definitely been online. Anyways, I've realized that the error may have been on my part. Are all navboxes going to be deleted to make things easier for people using the app?


 * If not, then what makes Template:The Doctor different from other navboxes? The Champion of Time     ☎  21:38, April 27, 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I made a dreadful mistake by writing the first message in the heat of the moment, and that has only made this situation much tenser than it needs to be. If you would kindly look through the eyes of a fairly new editor, I'm sure a conclusion can reached.


 * First off, before this conversation all my previous one-on-one discussions had been rather quick (although I realize as I type this that that was probably because they were with non-admin). It was due to this (and your empty pages this user is following box) that I wrote the second message. These previous conversations led me to assume that no response to "Are there any problems?" meant that there weren't any problems (although to be fair to the weasly me of 11 days ago, I never said they approved of it).


 * Anyways, to sum the confirmation thing up: Because I was unsure of creating my first template: I asked 2 admin if it was alright and did not recieve a response from either, I took this as an apathetic "we don't see any immediate problems" and created the template.


 * So, I'm sure you'll agree that I was in the wrong there, but I do not see how I am in the wrong in the whole deletion thing. SOTO's technical problems with my original propositions were that:


 * 1) It contained far too much to sit atop a page
 * 2) Per Tardis:Point of view, there shouldn't be sections labelled past, present and future
 * 3) Infoboxes should only contain the most relevant information
 * 4) It would expand the height of the page on the app
 * The current template is not an infobox so 1, 3 & 4 do not apply, and the section divisions of past, present and future have been removed. The reason I left you a message was because you put the deletion marker on the template. I feel that this explains my point of view, so if you're willing to share yours (or agree with me) than leave a message. Don't worry, I'll be patient this time! The Champion of Time     ☎  04:20, May 4, 2016 (UTC)

Clockworks
"Clockwork" isn't an accurate term. "Clockworks" isn't a plural. The individual term is always "member of the Clockworks" or very occasionally "Clockworker."Fwhiffahder ☎  00:35, April 26, 2016 (UTC)

Wrong thing for right reasons
It was a unique situation, which is not likely to repeat: after having been informed about the policy, I do not violate it other than in this case. The reason I could not put a "Speedy rename" tag is because the placement of "puppet" is not governed by the policies, cf. the hot discussions about Zygon Osgood vs. Osgood (Zygon). In this case, however, the placement was clear to keep all puppets' names uniform within the story. The "Rename" tag I put on Elisabeth of Bavaria hung there for close to 6 months I think. I even tried bringing the topic on Panopticon, but this is too uninteresting for most people (note that the Panopticon discussion is not applicable to this page). So, finishing the overhaul of The Silver Turk and having a clearly stated reason for a move, I chose to move this page, which was originally created by me with a wrong name and which no one else worked on (save for adding a hidden category once).

I moved it because doing the same without violating the "non-move" policy by creating a new page and moving all the links to it would have been worse (would not have copied the history). While performing the move, I was mindful of the potential problems pointed out in the thread you mentioned: I checked that no links point to the old page using Special:Whatlinkshere and I left a redirect, as per an earlier statement by an admin that it should be kept in this case. However, were it necessary to remove the redirect after the move, I would have done it manually, which is possible even for non-admins.

What I, however, regret doing is moving the content (including the talk page) of Elisabeth of Bavaria page to Sisi manually and manually pointing the redirect in the reverse direction. This was also necessary as "of Bavaria" is never mentioned in DWU. I did it in the way that does not violate the "non-move" policy, but too late have I realised that the history of changes will not be copied this way. For this I apologise. As I said, sometimes, violating a policy is better than not violating it.

Bottomline: I'm not gonna run amok and start moving pages left, right and centre. I do care about the integrity of this Wiki. But sometimes one must do what he must to get things done. Amorkuz ☎  09:19, April 27, 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out another problem with non-admin page moves. I understand and will never do it again under any circumstances. Also thank you for making sure my opinion is heard on J&L&S. Amorkuz ☎  08:19, May 5, 2016 (UTC)

Categories
Apologies, but the category I am restoring was a new categories I had forgotten to create, so I will be adding it back and creating it. RogerAckroydLives ☎  03:22, May 4, 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Can you please tell me why you keep undoing my edits? Clara's page needs to be cleaned up. Everytime I try to start, it's undone by you.

Protection request
Could you protect my talk page again, this time for six months please? The vandal from Wikipedia is back. Thanks much. :) Ebyabe   (talk)  22:30, May 9, 2016 (UTC)

My idea for Kamelion
Hello.

I'm just wondering how come you took out what I said on Kamelion's page.

Kevin &#39;Chalky&#39; Kaiba ☎  07:16, May 14, 2016 (UTC)

Cologne vs. cologne
As I promised, I'm not doing moves myself anymore. And even though what I'm planning to do is not a move, it is equivalent to one. So I'm still asking permission because I promised.

There is currently a redirect Cologne -> Perfume. It is used exactly once, on page Charlotte Cobb, where the phrase "perfume and cologne" has two different links to the same page. In other words, the only use of this redirect is a case of over-wikification.

On the other hand, this rare use of "cologne" in the sense of perfume causes problems for the German city of Cologne, which has been a main setting for Loups-Garoux. The city currently has no page. Loups-Garoux (audio story), 28 October and Mary's Story (audio story) refer to non-existent Cologne (city). 1589 refers to equally non-existent Cologne, Germany. And, worst of all, Germany uses Cologne without realising it's a perfume not a city.

What I've been planning to do for a long time is
 * 1) kill the redirect, removing the single link to Cologne-perfume and
 * 2) make this page into the page of the city instead, correcting all current red links.

As I said, since the page for the city does not exist, this cannot be done as a move. But I strongly believe it needs to be done. I would appreciate a green light from you on this in advance of making the changes. Amorkuz ☎  23:10, May 14, 2016 (UTC)


 * Additionally, I think it would make sense to put the "you may" template on the city page towards Perfume. Amorkuz ☎  12:06, May 15, 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. And you are right. The dab turns out normally to be "(city)". The comma dab is used almost exclusively for adding states to US cities, which is only appropriate. The exception seems to be Memphis, Egypt, but I can see why it cannot be disambiguated by "(city)". Amorkuz ☎  05:17, June 3, 2016 (UTC)

Links to dab pages
Hey. If you want to take a dab page off Special:Lonelypages, just add it to Tardis:Links to disambiguating pages. 01:24, May 16, 2016 (UTC)

Reverting edits
Sorry about that. It's an unfortunate combination of old habits dying hard, me forgetting that detail, or me just assuming that the reasoning is plain for all to see.BananaClownMan ☎  13:51, May 24, 2016 (UTC)

Audio stories
As much as I'd love to help, I only get downloads, not CDs.

On another note, thank you for undoing the PapiDimmi edits. As there were several hundred, I had asked Czech or SOTO to bot undo them, but neither were online at the time. I've left a message on PapiDimmi's talk page explaining what he did wrong. 12:16, May 31, 2016 (UTC)

Inforboxes
Hello...

I just discovered your message about Infobox User on my page. My apologies for not seeing it sooner.

Could you please let me know where I can find a template to copy that for my own page.

Thanks so much Mister Fifty ☎  18:27, June 1, 2016 (UTC)

17th century English history: could you archive the deleted events
Sorry for meddling in. I've been thinking that something was missing on the page of England, something I needed for the Cromwell dating and something I found on the page of the 17th century.

The history of England is not really on England. I resisted posting about it on the talk page because realistically I cannot start this project time-wise and because I may be wrong about the purpose of history sections on country pages.

Now that I looked at the page of Germany, I am persuaded that the history should be there for England too. It's useful for dating purposes and as a quick reference guide for things that are already confirmed in DWU. It need not be just a list of dates (which is easiest to compile from year and century pages). It could also be a description of the big events in history of the country as opposed to individuals living in it (Great Fire, Great Plague, The War of Roses, the Civil War, etc.; changes in the ruling structure like the Protectorate, big invasions like the Norman one, etc., etc.).

As I said, though I would probably enjoy doing this a lot and learn a lot about English history, I do not have time for it.

So why am I bothering you? Because I am an information junkie. By no means do I dispute your removal of the bullet list from the 17th century. However, this list contained a lot of information, much of which IMHO should rightfully be in the "History" section of England. I would hate to see this information lost. I may be wrong about its purpose. But it is information, and it can be used for something good.

Thus, my request. Could you please archive this and similar bullet-point lists somewhere when they are deleted? This would help prevent the loss of all this information, which I'm sure was painstakingly compiled by multiple editors? Thank you for your time. Amorkuz ☎  06:08, June 3, 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot. It really helps to have this info handy where it's allowed. Amorkuz ☎  07:59, June 4, 2016 (UTC)

Time placement revisited response
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. He and I have had a turbulence past, and I was updating him as a show of friendship, as the Sixth Doctor page is a possible favorite page for him to edit. I'd understand if you were just checking to ensure it was not a hostile message, and, if that is the case, I apologies in advance if I am making a mountain out of a molehill.

Now, down to business. I never meant to offend anyone with my "project" (for lack of a better term), nor do I intend for it to be viewed as official, as I'm all for other people contributing any new information that I was unable to find, like with User:TheChampionOfTime and the Cambridge Previsited having the companions off-stage.

As for why I like to find the chronological adventures of the Doctors, aside from enjoyment of deciphering the facts, is due to my Asperger's syndrome (don't worry, I'm not using it as an excuse like those internet trolls (oh, how I hate those guys)). I just feel compelled for things to have order. Besides, aren't all the entries based on speculation, at least in part. I was only trying to find some facts to back up some of the entries, and using the timeline theory forums was an easy way to leave those facts for others to find.

Also, I did check out those timeline talks you left me, and I don't think I'm actually doing anything wrong. I left the facts I found from various sources under the placements to show what logical order they could take and I acknowledged that some accounts contradicted others. I also made sure that all the facts didn't come from a single individual, as I used a variety of sources and picked the facts that the majority backed up. Also, I have to ask, 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? BananaClownMan ☎  15:38, June 3, 2016 (UTC)

...............................................................................................

First and foremost, I'd like to explain that there was no ulterior motive behind me contacting TheChampionOfTime. You see, I suffer from anxiety, and when you contacted me about the my activities, I got all stressed out and began having panic attacks about potentially being blocked (not helped by the bad luck streak that seems to follow me in June). As such, I reached out to fellow user to ask if they thought I was doing anything wrong only because it was affecting my health, and went to C.O.T. because they had helped me out in the past with the First Doctor's timeline. That's why I contacted them; not to worm my way around Wiki Politics, but because I was feeling worried and needed to voice my troubles to someone who would understand.

Believe it not note, I agree with you on how speculative it can be to place stories in a complete timeline, and how that can lead to edit wars and more users throwing their true potential for the wiki away because they think (as an example) that Hunters of the Burning Skull is before The Bells of St. John or set after The Name of the Doctor. That was one of my motivations to look into these Timeline forums and to see if, by researching every resource available to me, I could find a way to cease all edit wars on the subject by placing all the facts I found into one place. Heck, you could say this all stated when I accidently found a flaw in the Eighth Doctor's timeline that lead to Thread:168455.

In conclusion, I meant no harm by seeking support from TheChampionOfTime, and I don't want to cause any fuss about edit wars. But, surly you and I can agree that, as pretty much all entries into the Doctor's biography are at least partially speculative, having some facts to back up some of the entries, even something as minor as clothing, would degrease their speculative value and make it harder for people to argue with one another.

Also, something that has peaked my curiosity; I've done this with five Doctors so far (six if you include the War Doctor), why all this debating now?

Yours without malice, BananaClownMan ☎  19:26, June 9, 2016 (UTC)

Mitzi Wittenmeier (puppet)
Hi, I'm really uncomfortable calling Mitzi Wittenmeier (puppet) "Mitzi Wittenmeier" in the infobox title. Shouldn't that be reserved only for Mitzi Wittenmeier? I mean, "Osgood" is not the infobox title of Zygon Osgood, nor "Queen Elizabeth I" of Zygon Queen Elizabeth I, nor "Doctor" of Robot Doctor. On the other hand, "Martha Jones" is the infobox title of Martha Jones (clone). Hmmm... Is there a written policy on this? Amorkuz ☎  06:57, June 4, 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe I found the thread you mentioned. Is it this one? There CzechOut does say: "Dab terms should never be in an infobox..." I wonder though if this means that the "name" field should always be formed by just dropping the dab term, whichever it is. Because I had the same feeling that leaving the dab term in parenthesis in this field is just plain ugly. CzechOut says it regarding a dab term that is a story name. Again, I agree 100%. My reasoning was: let's try to find a name that the characters could use based on what we know. If we do not know the name of the planet, calling it "Planet" is reasonable for us and for them. Same for Cologne (city): it is quite natural to call it "Cologne" for us and for them. But I had this feeling that Mary Shelley would not knowingly call Mitzi's puppet "Mitzi". Not wanting to keep the dab term, I, thus, converted Mitzi Wittenmeier (puppet) into "Puppet Mitzi Wittemeier". Perhaps, the characters would use "Puppet of Mitzi Wittenmeier" but I hope you get the point. I'm just explaining my original reasoning. Now, I have some thoughts about it. But, perhaps, the wisest course of actions is to ask CzechOut for the scope of his remark. He stated it for a particular case, so it might well be that he had a more elaborate theory in mind. I would be interested in learning that theory. Could you ask him/her? Or should I? And if it is decided to keep it puppetless, I will have to make changes to several similar pages I've created.


 * PS. Could this be the origin of the Zygon "person" page names? If I thought that putting (Zygon) as a dab term would result in the infobox name being just "person", then using Zygon as a prefix seems like a preventive measure. Amorkuz ☎  18:20, June 4, 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm always for adding rules to policies for everyone to see. And if you're sure, I am taking your word for it. I would have preferred to add a link to this rule to explain the change. But I can also refer to you if questioned. Amorkuz ☎  23:45, June 4, 2016 (UTC)

Page Move
Ah, okay, sorry, didn't know that. I just thought it was a minor page and so it wouldn't matter. I did attempt to raise the matter on the page's talk page but when I tried to click on the link I just got a string of symbols. Is it okay for the page to remain there or do I need to make my case? Skteosk ☎  22:32, June 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see you've just moved it back. I should probably read it again but the thread you directed me to seemed to, rather schizophrenically, state that it was okay to move a page if it has less than 10 links to it, so long as you add that template first. So...do I do that? Skteosk ☎  22:37, June 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll do that then.Skteosk ☎  00:11, June 5, 2016 (UTC)

Short apology
I was wrong regarding the number of Miltons and Purcells present in Wikipedia. I only checked the "(disambiguation)" page, but there is also "(surname)" page. For Milton, it's not too bad: there are only two in the 17th century, and both are Johns, plus one is way more famous. There are six Purcells from the 17th century, however, and three of them could potentially be meant. Thus, I am hesitant to make a determination myself. I put all the information on the talk page. Let the rename be suggested by those bolder than me. Amorkuz ☎  18:45, June 5, 2016 (UTC)

~ ~ ~ ~SAINT1 Why did you delete the Word lord and CORDIS revisions?

I downloaded the audio story The Word Lord and listened to it, and I made notes about the Word Lords and the CORDIS, and I added it to the pages. I may have even added a few logical assumptions. If that is the reason YOU went to all the trouble to delete those same revisions to two pages that were lacking in information, then you should have deleted those sections, not the parts of the CORDIS's chameleon meme. That was accurate.

Blocking or at least protecting
We have an unregistered user that keeps removing River as the Twelfth Doctor's wife no matter how often it gets reverted and won't stop. Can you block them or at least protect that page so they can't mess with it anymore???--WarGrowlmon18 ☎  01:26, June 9, 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Not sure blocking the user would do any good since they are unregistered but protecting the page should at least keep them at bay.--WarGrowlmon18 ☎  02:25, June 9, 2016 (UTC)

The Dalek Invasion of Earth (TV story)|The Dalek Invasion of Earth
Just a note to let you know that there are numerous pictures in this page that are not showing and have red links in their sections. I did try to fix one of them without success.

Thanks Mister Fifty ☎  15:31, June 9, 2016 (UTC)

Apology
More that twice now have I accidentally described by note as "grammar a là Shambala108". I apologise if this looked like some kind of a negative feeling. In reality, only the first of these edits was an exact copy of your edit, so the intention was to credit the originator of the idea. The subsequent edits resulted from an unfortunate auto suggest functionality: I plan to write "grammar" and hit the "post" button just to realise that grammar was replaced with the above note on auto suggest. Amorkuz ☎  10:35, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

the pinball machine page
Greetings,

I noticed that you removed the categories i added to the pinball game page, but I don't understand why.

I suspect that you have false assumptions about this unusual pinball machine: it comes with an plot, a new variation of the who opening theme by the machine composer using the machine sounds chips, voice actings (by McCoy and Terry Molloy), and a video screen (with a recreation of the diamond opening title, and includes some video game sequences using the flippers as a fancy game pad)

The story is available in the game technical manual, on the flyers and the promo video. You can easily find them online.

I intend to write these details in the main article soon (after finding sources), but i can guarantee that each of the tag I put on this article before were relevant.

pinball game 2
Thanks for your quick reply, but it leaves me with further puzzlement.

1)

Indeed, in the pinball story you must try to rescue each of the seven incarnations in the order you wish to. And in the battle with davros, to quote the manual, "all the Doctors will be re-united, combining their unique knowledge and experience to defeat Davros and his Daleks."

But to me it's precisely like the Destiny of the doctors video game: you rescue all seven incarnations in no special order to have them defeat the master. And this story is considered a valid source (for example, it's referenced in the master's article)

2)

In any case, I don't understand why these tags can not be used on an invalid source (though i read User:CzechOut edit summary)

Why could not an invalid story have a tag that contains the word "story"? Is it that an invalid story is not considered a story by this wiki (which would mean that there is special definition of the word "story")? If it is indeed the case, that seems to make it harder for a navigator to find invalid stories articles, which is opposed to the purpose of wikia tags. What other terms could be used to categories pages of either valid or non valid source?

Seeing that the curse of fatal death is a TV story according to its page title, and also features in the "regeneration stories" category, I thought "story" was a such term that could be used indiscriminately. That would be intuitive, imho, since this piece of fiction actually features a (parody) regeneration, and doesn't indicate anything about its validity.

Regards, RingoRoadagain ☎  01:51, June 19, 2016 (UTC)

CON Pages
I was looking at the pages for Doctor Who Confidential pages and noticed that the first few letters of every word are showing at the top next to the three blocks at the top instead of as one word. I tried to fix it but was unable to. It may be happening on every article from this section, although I only checked the first four. Thanks Mister Fifty ☎  18:37, June 20, 2016 (UTC)

Re:Question
I don't know if the novel mentions that, so I removed it from the page. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks Mister Fifty ☎  19:40, June 20, 2016 (UTC)

ok dude, i get why you undid that first edit to the Doomsday article. it was supposed to be a joke, but it went too far. im sorry

but that second edit, it was a sensible edit. "removing speculation"? whats that supposed to mean? all i did was add a sentence or two to the plot summary. is that unacceptable? am i not allowed to make sensible article edits, all because of that one joke which i have already apologised for?

come on dude, grow up

Graceless Edge thanks
Thank you for moving. I also wanted to clarify one thing actually. I dared make a page for the Second Doctor box set yesterday. But without listening to the audios, I'm not confident enough to make pages for the individual stories, sorry. Amorkuz ☎  06:59, June 25, 2016 (UTC)

Uncredited cast for copies
It's a question that bothered me for some time now. I generally try to find sources for uncredited cast. But there are cases when no sources seem to be available. Despite this, it seems pretty obvious who voices the roles. I'm talking about voices for doubles, duplicates, body snatchers, etc. I've had quite a few of these in The Silver Turk and was worried about their credits. Perhaps, it's time to put that out in the open. When Rolf Wittenmeier (puppet) is intended as a perfect copy of Rolf Wittenmeier and his wife initially mistakes the puppet for her husband based on the voice, is that sufficient to credit the puppet with the same actor as the original? I concede that there is no 100% guarantee. This is Doctor Who and anything can happen. But there is a kind of contextual evidence from the story itself, IMHO. There are tons of other puppets in The Silver Turk. The case of the Silver Doctor is slightly more tenuous: it is not directly stated that he has the voice of the Eighth Doctor. But everyone discussing it on the Wikia recognises Paul McGann's voice, and there is an in-joke in the story: "Who will win" says the Silver Doctor.

The problem with crediting such small roles is that they are unlikely to be mentioned in the featurettes. I've just checked Neverland. It didn't have CD extras at all (not on the download at least). And I think it was released before the Vortex appeared. So I'm out of ideas of how to establish that Sentris was voiced by India Fisher. However, if memory does not deceive me, Sentris is stated to use Charlie's form. I can relisten to be sure, but the idea is that Charlie's non-dying has perturbed the Web of Time, which made it possible for the anti-time people to appear in the main universe. So Sentris used her form. I think back in Seasons of Fear (the first appearance of Sentris I recall), characters were mistaking her for Charlie by appearance. So I'm pretty sure I could find contextual evidence that Sentris is a bodily copy of Charlie in the stories. My questions is: would it be sufficient to establish the uncredited voice actor? Amorkuz ☎  07:46, June 26, 2016 (UTC)