User talk:Shambala108

Hi! 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. 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.

Thanks!

Images
Please don't just delete an image because the page doesn't have a licence. You should ask the user who uploaded it where they got it and if an appropriate licence template can be assigned, then assign it. If the file breaks the rules of copyright, then delete it. I have re-uploaded my image with what I think is the appropriate copyright license, if you do not agree, I got the image from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Butterworth.

I would like to point out that if any of the information that have told you is inaccurate, like if you cannot add a license, then ask the user to reupload it with the correct license. Rufus 00:44, August 10, 2014 (UTC) User:120d

Re:Summing Up
1. A title name is not a spoiler. It is as much a spoiler as saying the Doctor will be in Series 8.

1a. You have broken the rules, not of this wiki, but of writing etiquette. You DO NOT edit a person message that is not your own. You wouldn't change the words in a book, so you shouldn't do it here.

1b. You are taking these rules way to far. I am glad that you have not blocked me, but there is no reason to remove someone else's words because they break the rules.

2. Wow, just wow. That is completely unfair and unreasonable. You cannot say "We won't allow your image because it is not in the form we want it." that is just not okay.

4 and 5. I am realizing as I type this that all of these things are related. When did you become the ruler of this wiki and the one who can just tell people what to do? You may have more abilities than me, but it doesn't mean you have more power. I have noticed that you are being mean in a somewhat polite way, but it is still being mean.

6. I always liked message walls better. They are so much easier than talk pages.

Rufus 01:13, August 12, 2014 (UTC) User:120d User talk:120d

Jenny Edit
Concerning the Jenny edit, the text I used is called "free-floating sub-division." The problem is that the TOC (which is right-aligned) ends up pushing the image down to a lower section rather than appearing under the Messaline sub-heading. This would not be a universal appearance as wikis using floating text, so that the end appearance is going to differ depending on monitor resolution. So I'm guessing on some resolutions the image isn't stacked (as more lines of text end up appearing on lower resolutions, thus there's less chance of images stacking up as more text goes downwards, and as such, images have less chance of "stacking"), but on higher ones, it is. The code allows the image to come up against the TOC rather than being pushed down by it, but still appear as normal on other settings. I'm guessing that by the revert comments there was no visual difference, whereas on higher resolutions, the image is no longer appearing below the "After Messaline" section.

If it sounds complicated...yeah, it is, and it gave me a headache for wiki editing until I found the code to keep images in place rather than being pushed down by templates. I've reverted the edit and if the page visually appears the same, it means the code's done its job. If it's reverted again, I won't turn it into an edit war. But basically this is a heads up for the issue. I've had to apply the code elsewhere where it's an issue so that wiki appearances are as uniform as possible regardless of the type of monitor they're viewed on.

Hope that helps. :)--Hawki ☎  01:30, August 16, 2014 (UTC)

Spam in forums
When I removed the threads, there was a checkbox that said "Notify admins". In future, I'll leave an admin a message on their talk page as well.  P&amp;P  talk   contribs  15:45, August 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey, the spammers are back at Thread:159670, and the new user spamming is User:Jessica.alvord.92. They've previously spammed on the Disney wiki.  P&amp;P  talk   contribs  15:24, August 20, 2014 (UTC)

More forum spam at Thread:160569 from 108.178.32.130.  P&amp;P  talk   contribs  14:00, September 4, 2014 (UTC)

Categories
The reason Jane Slavin and Lizzie Hopley are in the DW voice actors category in addition to the BFDW voice actors category is because they've voiced characters in productions that were NOT made by Big Finish. The same is true for Tom Baker, Elisabeth Sladen, Nicholas Courtney, Colin Baker, Nicola Bryant, David Tennant and Nicholas Briggs amongst others. So by your logic, we'd have to remove them from the DW voice actors category as well simply because they're also in the BFDW voice actors category. I frankly don't see what bot tasks have to do with it. Slughorn42 ☎  14:29, August 17, 2014 (UTC)


 * All right, fine. While I don't particularly understand the urgency of why the problem needs to be fixed now, I'll go ahead and do what I can to help out. There's no point in dragging this out any longer. Slughorn42 ☎  17:49, August 17, 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the only ones we should leave alone are "Actors who portrayed the Doctor" and "Actors who voiced for the Doctor". Some have done both and some have only done one or the other. Slughorn42 ☎  18:31, August 17, 2014 (UTC)

Archiving
Just archived my own talk page without issue, but I don't doubt you had problems. The tool has always been slightly finicky. The solution is pretty simple. If the archive "misfires", simply undo the edit to the talk page and try again. Almost always solves the problem. 21:33: Thu 21 Aug 2014

Image deletion/licensing
I'd like to second what User:120d said earlier about deleting images for lack of a license. It'd be much more helpful to assume positive intent by the uploader, that it was a simple oversight, and ask the user to add a license rather than force them to re-upload the image.

If you feel that any image without a license truly must be deleted immediately, rather than updated as soon as possible, then some coding needs to be changed so that uploading can't proceed without a license.

Having policies is one thing, but enforcing policy over encouraging a spirit of cooperation is making this wiki unpleasant to contribute to. Monkey with a Gun ☎  04:46, August 28, 2014 (UTC)

I was unaware that the deletion was automatic. I apologize. However, I would note that on the image upload pop-up, the license selection dropdown is hidden by default, and requires that the use click on "More options" to add it. Even if preventing upload without a license isn't possible, making the license dropdown not hidden would be helpful for the more absentminded among us. Monkey with a Gun ☎  05:18, August 28, 2014 (UTC)

New TARDIS Data Core page: Imperial
Hi Shambola108,

Just thought I'd drop you a line to let you know that I've created the page Imperial for TARDIS Data Core.

I'd be grateful if you and the other administators could take a look when you get a spare moment and make any changes you consider necessary.

Many thanks. Freddie R. Aldous ☎  15:49, August 28, 2014 (UTC)

Stop bullying people
Hi! Please stop comparing/contrasting Missy (Deep Breath) to Clara's mother. It's not relevant at this point, and is either speculation, which is not allowed on the wiki, or a spoiler, which is expressly forbidden by Tardis:Spoiler policy. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎  17:53, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

I never compared the person to Clara's mother. In the episode, it kept referring to Clara as The Doctor's boyfriend. At the end Missy said she was The Doctor's boyfriend. It is important to note that Clara has brown eyes and Missy has blue. It's an important clarification. The first time you removed it saying "speculation" and so I had to remove why it was relevant and now you just remove it for "irrelevant". You just like destroying people's hard work on wikis--wikis are full of trolls like you who sit around doing nothing but harassing innocent people. You never do anything to help, you just hurt innocent people! Why don't you stop bullying people? OrmiaOchracea ☎  19:39, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry about that I haven't been on this Wiki for a few years so I'm not used to who the admins are or the New polices. But I did think you were a vandal user so I was just saying to the user to report the "bullying" to an admin that's why I left the comment on the missy talk page. I wasn't trying to attack anyone. Many Thanks. Lewody1 ☎  22:47, August 29, 2014 (UTC) :)

Into the Dalek
Hello there! I was just wondering about this page here, as I am not entirely sure what to do myself: Into The Dalek (TV Story). It seems it is a redirect page, with no redirection. I believe that this page should be considered for deletion, as there is the genuine article here: Into the Dalek (TV story). Thank you.

20:51, August 30, 2014 (UTC)

Danny Pink & Samuel Anderson
Hi, is there a reason why we registered users can't create these pages? Since the pages relate to character/actor who has appeared in a released episode. Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 15:51, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks forgot that SOTO locked series 8 pages Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 16:11, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I'm sorry for my recent mistakes in editing categories. I'm new to this wiki (although I've contributed a bit to others) and I was unfamiliar with the details system. I had expected to make some mistakes in my edits, but also expected to receive notifications for any activity on my talk page, which is why I seem to have missed other users notifying me of my errors. One or two of my mistakes were a result of copying seemingly incorrect edits from other users (see Graxnix and the use of the 'combatants in the Time War' category). Anyway, I'll revise my use of the category system and hold back on any similar edits until I'm more used to it. I'll also post apologies for my buffoonery on the talk pages of the other users whose notifications I managed to miss. In the meantime, I'd really appreciate a lift of the ban on the proviso that I refrain from any more mistaken edits of the categories. Thanks very much, and sorry for the trouble. User:TheAnonJade

I've read through the page. That clears it up and I'll definitely do my best to tread more carefully in the future (as well as regularly checking my talk page in case I mess up again). Thanks very much for understanding and for replying so quickly; I appreciate it. I'll keep doing my best to contribute and I hope I don't tread on too many toes. User:TheAnonJade

Suitors, Inc.
As I recall the whole T:ROMANA cleanup effort, I chose to use the Doctor Who Reference Guide to "break ties" as it were. The "tie" in this case came down to a few factors:


 * 1) I hadn't read the story, nor had I the foreseeable opportunity to read it. This necessarily meant I was reliant on other sources, which is not a place I generally like to be in, when it comes to writing articles here.  But I found no source which firmly declared a Romana, at the time.  Wikipedia's article on the anthology have since firmly declared Romana II, but without giving rationale for it.  Obviously, if you have the story and can find something in it that firmly gives you R2, that trumps everything.
 * 2) Around the time of my edit, the page had borne a timeline section, which had pegged this as being after Victims and before The Lying Old Witch in the Wardrobe.  Obviously, that's a nonsense placement.  Since Witch is Romana's regeneration story, anything before Witch is R1, while anything after Victims must be R2.  With that information on the page obviously wrong, it seemed to me that we didn't have a good read on the story.

So I was left with DWRG's assessment, and they place it after The Armageddon Factor, but before another post-Key to Time Short Trips story, Life from Lifelessness. That later short story definitely does have R1.

As is typical for them, DWRG's placement is marked as "arbitrary", and that's precisely why we tend not to use them. However, DWRG had to know that it wasn't completely arbitrary in this case, as they were flipping a coin between two incarnations of a character. So they must have based it on something. My guess is that the DWRG's choice is based upon the attitude Romana displays in the story, which is apparently more eye-rolling-at-the-Doctor's-stupidity (like Mary Tamm) than the rather more follow-Tom's-lead version of Romana that Lalla Ward served up in her first several adventures.

I can say for certain, however, that I'm not comfortable with making a decision about Suitors based upon Verdigris, unless we can find a statement by Paul Magrs that actually ties the two together. I would much rather go on the characterisation of Romana as given in Suitors — or any other tidbits in the story — than to try to infer something from a throwaway line in Verdigris.

See, even though both Verdigris and Suitors, Inc. were written by Paul Magrs, it does seem to give the author a tremendous amount of credit to have planted a tiny, throwaway line in a 2000 novel for one publisher that paid off only in a 2005 short story for another. Indeed, I think that bit in the continuity section of Suitors, Inc. needs a strong qualification. It needs to be made very clear in our article that, while the line is an interesting coincidence, Verdigris very much predates Suitors. Influence flowing in that direction, though possible, is unlikely enough that it would require a statement by the author for us to advance as true.

But again, the key thing is to just read the story, so you're likely to be the one to make the final determination on this. 14:05: Tue 02 Sep 2014
 * If it helps, there's definitely a post-Key period for R1. The Stealers from Saiph, for instance, is definitely set between Armageddon and Destiny. And there's zero indication at the top of Destiny that they've just finished the KTT thing. Indeed, the Doctor has had time to completely tear apart K9's guts, and Romana is regenerating for some unknown reason.  When we last left them in Armageddon, both his companions were in fine health. Also, Armageddon ends with the Doctor explaining that he's fit the TARDIS with a randomiser, and then putting the craft in flight.  In Destiny, Romana asks where they're going and he has to explain again about the randomiser.  Now, obviously, this is for the benefit of the audience, who've had the summer break between the two stories.  But it also seems a silly thing for her to ask if Armageddon immediately precedes Destiny. So clearly something happened in the interim, which is why BF could positively assert Saiph as an intervening R1 story, and why ST were able to go with Life from Lifelessness as an R1 post-Key story.   15:30: Tue 02 Sep 2014

RE: Page Deletion
Thanks very much. It was a silly mistake; I was editing using a mobile device and I couldn't view the page in its entirety. Anyway, thanks for explaining, and sorry for blundering around and making mistakes so often. User:TheAnonJade 17:25 05/09/14

Doctorkaran8 ☎  12:01, September 6, 2014 (UTC) my post on  Thread:159341 was just as off topic as yours. Also, asking people to be nice to eachother is not a personal attack, it is a polite suggestion.

Re: Story Synopsis
Okay, cool. I'd forgotten about that. Won't do it again. :)
 * The Farty  Doctor   Talk  19:16, September 7, 2014 (UTC)

Merry Men
"Merry Men" is still a subcategory of "12th century individuals". Therefore, the latter is still redundant. Slughorn42 ☎  03:14, September 9, 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Slughorn42 ☎  03:16, September 9, 2014 (UTC)

Re: Image on Spaceship (Robot of Sherwood)
Hey, thanks for the comment! I didn't realise it had to be a .jpg file but now I know for future reference. And when I uploaded it, there was a drop down menu and I clicked "screenshot from the BBC" (or words to that effect). And this was a picture I found from Google. So as long as I turn it into a .jpg and reupload, everything should be fine? :) The  Farty  Doctor   Talk  14:39, September 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks! I just thought it would be a shame not to have a picture on the article if we have one to hand. Thanks again. The  Farty  Doctor   Talk  14:56, September 11, 2014 (UTC)

Hello
Can't get rid of me. What's your name. Who is your favourite doctor/companion/enemy. What is your favourite/least favourite episode. Byeeeeeee. :D 54.216.106.214talk to me 17:45, September 11, 2014 (UTC)

New TARDIS Data Core page: Phil Madison
Hi Shambola108,

Just thought I'd drop you a line to let you know I've created the page Phil Madison for TARDIS Data Core.

I'd be grateful if you and the other administrators could take a look when you get a spare moment and make any changes you consider necessary.

Many thanks. Freddie R. Aldous ☎  12:39, September 16, 2014 (UTC)

The green-ness of the coat
Some time ago, we were investigating whether it was enough of an indication of the presence of the Eighth Doctor in a short story if he were described as having a "green frock coat". I think some other users said this was in no way indicative of Eight because he wasn't wearing green in the TVM, or words to that effect.

Turns out that it's explicitly how he's described in The Elixir of Doom, at around 14:10 in part 1:
 * IRIS WILDTHYME: It was someone Jo shouldn't really see. I'd get the blame for it all if Jo encountered him out of sync, as it were. They'd always blame me, of course. There he was, quite dapper in his green frock coat and his dark, flowing locks: Number Eight, as I live and breathe ... he'd recognise me straight away from our adventures with Sam on the desert planet of Hyspero ... "

So that's pretty much a lock. Green frock coat and brown flowing locks = Eighth Doctor. (And, incidentally, one of the few times Big Finish explicitly reference the EDAs.) 17:46: Wed 17 Sep 2014

Thanks for pointing out the mistake
Hello, Shambala. Thank you for kindly pointing out the mistake I made with the signature. You see, I'm not exactly a beginner when it comes to wikias&mdash;I've been editing on Wookieepedia since 2006&mdash;but I'm still struggling not to mix up the policies I'm used to and the ones implemented here. Because of that, I've made a few faux pas since I began editing here, but it will be sorted out very soon. -- Lelal Mekha  (Parlour) 19:25, September 17, 2014 (UTC)

Roger that
Well, by definition, any edit which does not add or remove any text is, in fact, not an edit at all, as no change has taken place, but aside from that, I'll try and keep your points in mind. ;-)

The 'criticized' correction was force of habit, I'm a writer and I tend to fix what I see as spelling errors without even thinking about it, my apologies for using the Canadian English spelling instead. As for the "speculation", it's actually a fairly interesting point for the episode in question that the 12th Doctor's claim of speaking a ridiculous language is not played for laughs, as the 11th Doctor's similar claims were, and which have been noted for quite some time on the language page for "Baby", among others. Would it help if I added a "Behind the Scenes" section to comment on that? Captain J ☎  01:16, September 18, 2014 (UTC)

TARDIS Type 40 Plaque
Hello, Shambala. I wanted to know your opinion about something I just discovered&mdash;and I hope you'll forgive me if that particular matter has already been discussed and solved by the community. I saw the BBC sold TARDIS type 40 plaques on its website, saying they are exact replicas of the one that was found on the interior of the Series 5- 7 TARDIS. At the beginning, I was skeptical about this, but I ended up discovering that plaque could indeed be seen in Amy's Choice. (It's a blink-and-you-miss-it appearance, and you really have to pause the episode at the right frame to see it, but it's there.) Now, I'm not sure this can be considered canonical, because it may be an Easter egg. That's why I didn't go ahead and didn't create an article on the Gallifrey Blackhole Shipyards. In fact, I'm doubting of the plaque's canonicity because it says the Doctor's TARDIS was built in 1963. Somehow, I don't think it sounds right, but I may be mistaken. What do you think? Cheers. -- Lelal Mekha  (Parlour) 18:27, September 21, 2014 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks
Recently you blocked a user on the Rose vs. Clara board in the Celestial Toyroom for a personal attack. Although I understand the block, it technically does not follow policy. According to T:NPA, an attacked user should "ask the attacker to stop and note this policy." I don't see any of that on either the board or on the user's talk page. Also, it says that in extreme cases, the user may be blocked. This was hardly an extreme case. "Ridiculous," while constituting a personal attack, is hardly offensive. Beyond that, T:BLOCK says that personal attackers "should be given one warning prior to a cool-off ban." I see no warning. Anyhow, this user's block was only for a week, so it doesn't really matter. I just think that if one personal attack results in a block with no warning, you should change the policies to reflect that. The policies should reflect practice. CloneMarshalCommanderCody ☎  02:14, September 23, 2014 (UTC)


 * All that makes sense to me. I agree with your decisions. I just think that this information should be added to T:NPA to make it more clear in the future. CloneMarshalCommanderCody ☎  20:58, September 23, 2014 (UTC)

RE minor edits
RE minor edits - righty-oh, got it! I think I sort of assumed "minor" was anything that wasn't massive changes to the layout or rewrites of the whole article or something. Noted!

Lists of appearances
Hello. I was wondering whether there are any guidelines to creating lists of appearances. I found a discussion about this, but it seems no guidelines have been created yet, correct? In particular, I'd like to know if there is any rule as to the order in which stories should be mentioned. Do they have to be in the order they were released? That seems logical, because it is often not possible to determine the in-universe order, but I wanted to check. I'm asking all this because I want to add some stories which are now missing from companions' lists of appearances to these lists, and some of these lists could do with being organised in the publishing order. Do I do that or not? Thanks in advance. SwordLily621 ☎  12:46, September 24, 2014 (UTC)

First/last name basis
Hello there! I see that you just changed a few occurrences of "Smith" into "Sarah" in the Stone Tape theory article. Does that mean there actually is a rule&mdash;or at least a habit&mdash;of referring to characters on a first name basis on this wikia? I've been trained to think of it as unencyclopedic, but then again, it's nothing but a matter of convention. Cheerio. -- Lelal Mekha  (Parlour) 16:11, September 25, 2014 (UTC)